P.102 Expanded endoscopic endonasal approach for orbital apex decompression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) has been gaining popularity in the past decade as an alternative to traditional transcranial and transorbital approaches. We have performed orbital apex decompression for a variety of pathological entities. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review on patients who underwent EEA orbital apex decompression between January 1st 2010 and December 1st 2018 at McMaster University. Results: Eight patients underwent endoscopic endonasal orbital decompression at our center, including five male patients and three female patients. The mean age of our patients was 50.1 years. The different pathologies we treated included nasopharyngeal carcinoma, hemangioma, fibrous dysplasia, IgG4 disease, inverted papilloma, angioleiomyoma, and neuroendocrine paraganglioma. Five patients presented with visual symptoms. Postoperatively, one of these five patients improved to baseline, three had stable vision, another one had progressive visual decline despite surgical intervention. Conclusions: Endoscopic endonasal approach can be used as an alternative to decompress orbital apex pathologies in 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".