MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200247162 · doi:10.1002/hed.26967

Resection of the internal carotid artery in selected patients affected by cancer of the skull base

2021· article· en· W4200247162 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Ferrari, Elisabetta Zanoletti, Stefano Taboni, Diego Cazzador, Giulia Tealdo, Alberto Schreiber, Davide Mattavelli, Vittorio Rampinelli, Francesco Doglietto, Marco Maria Fontanella, Barbara Buffoli, Alperen Vural, Vincenzo Verzeletti, Andrea Luigi Camillo Carobbio, Dikran Mardighian, Francesco Causin, Ester Orlandi, Marco Cenzato, Rita Rezzani, Piero Nicolai

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal carotid arteryMedicinePerioperativeSurgerySkullSurvival rateRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) has been historically considered a criterion of non-resectability of skull base cancer (SBC). Patients affected by SBC who underwent surgery including resection of ICA at two tertiary institutions were included. Demographics, oncologic, and surgical information, complications, and survival outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. Survival outcomes were calculated. Ten patients were included. Three surgical approaches (transnasal endoscopic, transorbital, and transpetrosal) were employed to resect the invaded/abutted tract(s) of the ICA. All patients underwent ICA temporary balloon occlusion test. In two patients, an extracranial-to-intracranial arterial bypass was harvested. Major neuromorbidity was observed in two patients. Perioperative mortality of the series was 10.0%. Mean overall survival was 27.2 months, with 2-year overall and progression-free survival rate of 88.9%. ICA resection is feasible as part of the ablation performed for very advanced SBCs. Survival outcomes are acceptable in adequately selected patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207