MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173427432 · doi:10.25259/sni_948_2020

Deadly complication of sacrificing superior petrosal vein during cerebellopontine angle tumor resection: A case report and literature review

2021· article· en· W3173427432 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Irwan Barlian Immadoel Haq, Andhika Tomy Permana, Rahadian Indarto Susilo, Joni Wahyuhadi

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Neurology International · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMeningioma and schwannoma management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFleniUniversité LibanaiseUniversity of BaghdadQueen Mary University of LondonMcGill UniversityUniversity of TokyoMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineCerebellopontine angleSurgeryComplicationMiddle fossaRadiologyMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Tumors of the cerebellopontine angle (CPA) are challenging to resect and have been proven difficult for neurosurgeons to manage optimally. Superior petrosal vein complex (SPVC) as the main drainage system and close proximity to CPA could be an obstacle during operation. There is an incidence ranging from 55% to 84% of injury to one part of the SPVC during CPA tumor surgery. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report a case of 65-year-old woman with CPA tumor, who complained of unilateral hearing loss, dizziness, and facial pain. During tumor resection, one part of SPV complex was injured, then cerebellar edema develops. CONCLUSION: This case provides an overview of surgical complication associated with venous sacrifice. This would support the agreement to preserve SPV regarding risks and improve the quality of surgical decision making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical Neurology InternationalSame topicMeningioma and schwannoma managementFrench-language works237,207