MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Variations in the bony architecture of the greater palatine canal: An anatomical report

2022· article· en· W4225375562 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar Hafeez, Ali Z Ansari, Marjorie Johnson, Galil A. Khadry

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnatomyHard palateMedicineCraniofacialSkullMaxillaMaxillary nerveOccipital boneDentistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The greater palatine canal route has been well‐described in adults for the purposes of anesthetizing the branches of the maxillary division of trigeminal nerve for the relief of sphenopalatine neuralgia [ 11] . The canal also provides direct access to the contents of the PPF [ 12 ] . A complex array of vascular and neural structures characterizes this posterior maxillary region where the GPC is located. Its surgical anatomy can get further complicated by any anatomic variations and identification of vital structures becomes difficult, especially when bleeding during surgery obscures the region. Accurate knowledge of normal anatomy and common anatomical variations therefore remain crucial in minimizing intraoperative and postoperative complications associated with invasive microsurgical approaches to this region. The aim of this study was to explore the architecture of the GPC for any anatomic variations. Material & Method In total, 30 adult dried and intact skull specimens were selected. The selection criteria included an intact hard palate with erupted 3 rd molars and an intact lateral nasal wall on both sides. The exclusion criteria included any major craniofacial deformities, excessive bone resorption, very old specimens. The bony walls of the GPC were observed by passing a black wire. Findings 4 out of 30 specimens showed marked variations in the bony medial wall of the greater palatine canal (GPC). Partial to complete malfusion between the posterior surface of the maxilla and the perpendicular plate of palatine bone was observed. This might be the result of embryological malformation. Conclusion The present study provided information regarding the existence of some degree of anatomical variation in the bony architecture of greater palatine canal. Significance This might help surgeons visualize over the possibility of the existence of any such variation while performing any surgical procedure in the posterior maxillary area. In order to establish the embryological basis of these findings, investigation on a larger number of specimens is highly suggested by the authors.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207