Relevance of tissue eosinophilia in subdural hematomata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic subdural hematomata (CSDH) are treated by evacuation. Recurrence occurs in 3-20% of cases, but the factors determining its occurrence have not been determined. Having observed that eosinophil cell infiltrates are often present in the outer membrane of CSDH, our aim was to determine whether such infiltrates are associated with risk of recurrence. Histological sections of the resections from 72 patients with primary CSDH (Mean age 73.4) and 16 with recurrent CSDH (Mean age 72.1) stained with H&E were graded by blinded observers for eosinophilic cell infiltrates using a semiquantitative 0 to 3 scale. The risk of recurrence requiring reoperation (RrR) in primary CSDH was 11.1%, and 12.5% in recurrent CSDH (meaning third surgery was required). A dense (grades 2 or 3) eosinophilic infiltrate was present in 22.2% of primary CSDH; the RrR was 0% in these cases, as compared with 14.8% in cases with sparse (grades 0-1) eosinophilic infiltrate. Among recurrent CSDH cases, 12.5% (2/15) showed a dense eosinophilic infiltrate; the RrR was also 0%, contrasting with 14.3% in those with sparse eosinophilic infiltrate. We conclude that eosinophils either play a role or are a marker of a process leading to stabilizing CSDH, making them less prone to rebleeding. Abstract not previously published Learning Objectives Describe the risk of recurrence following surgical evacuation of chronic subdural hematomata Recognize the variable presence of eosinophils in chronic subdural hematomata Cite the presence of eosinophils is predictive of absence of recurrence
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".