MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210530303 · doi:10.7759/cureus.21761

Surgical Management of Congenital Nasal Pyriform Aperture Stenosis: A Case Report

2022· article· en· W4210530303 on OpenAlexaff
Maho Iemura-Kashiwagi, Masahiro Kikuchi, Hideaki Okuyama, Shinzo Tanaka

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Ear and Nasal Anomalies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory distressNoseSurgeryStenosisIntubationRestenosisStentRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Congenital nasal pyriform aperture stenosis (CNPAS) is a rare cause of respiratory distress in newborns. This paper reports a case of severe CNPAS that required endotracheal intubation immediately after birth, and eventually, surgical intervention. At birth, the width of the pyriform aperture was only 4 mm, and the patient was completely unable to breathe through his nose. We performed tracheostomy at 23 days of age and waited for the patient to grow, but at 56 days of age, the width of the pyriform aperture was not sufficient (6 mm) for the patient to breathe through his nose. Therefore, surgical dilation of the pyriform aperture by a sublabial approach was performed on day 79 after birth, and the width was increased to 14 mm. Postoperative stent placement was performed for two weeks. After the removal of the stents, the patient could finally breathe through his nose, and the postoperative course was uneventful, with no restenosis after four months. CNPAS is a rare cause of nasal obstruction, but it can cause respiratory distress in infants because they are dependent on nasal breathing. Conservative treatments are initially recommended for CNPAS; however, in severe cases where conservative treatments are ineffective, surgical treatment is recommended.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicCongenital Ear and Nasal AnomaliesFrench-language works237,207