MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199412289

ABSCESSOS INTRACRANIANOS DE ORIGENS ODONTOGÊNICAS – REVISÃO DA LITERATURA

2021· article· pt· W3199412289 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucas Bassani Barbieri, Rodrigo Antônio de Faria, Nara Sarmento Macêdo Signorelli, Renata Pereira Georjutti

Bibliographic record

Venuee-RAC · 2021
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicOtolaryngology and Infectious Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abscessos Intracranianos de origens odontogenicas sao complicacoes sistemicas graves e com risco de vida para o paciente, originando-se de um foco infeccioso de origem dentaria os abscessos intracranianos por meio de disseminacao hematogenica atingem as regioes intracranianas. O objetivo deste estudo e relatar por meio de uma revisao de literatura e relatos de casos clinicos, a evolucao de infeccoes de origens odontogenicas e suas complicacoes sistemicas. Para realizar esse levantamento foram utilizadas as bases de dados Canadian Dental Association e PubMed. Uma vez que abscessos intracranianos se originam de diferentes focos infecciosos se torna dificil detectar a origem que levou ao foco infeccioso intracraniano, a analise microbiologica se torna primordial para a interpretacao da origem da infeccao, na literatura revisada, em 31 casos de abscessos intracranianos 13% deles mostraram microbiota de anaerobicos presentes na cavidade oral. Com isso, se torna evidente a importância da conduta correta que o profissional de odontologia deve ter para se evitar tais agravos sistemicos, o correto diagnostico, tratamento e a associacao ou nao de antibioticoterapia para cada caso.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuee-RACSame topicOtolaryngology and Infectious DiseasesFrench-language works237,207