MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298126619 · doi:10.1159/000526566

The Development of Indirect Carotid Cavernous Fistulas after Microvascular Ischemic 4th Nerve Palsies

2022· article· en· W4298126619 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Pickel, Jonathan A. Micieli

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Ophthalmology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsKensington HealthToronto Western HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticCavernous sinusInternal carotid arteryCarotid-cavernous fistulaDiabetes mellitusFistulaDiplopiaCarotid arteriesCardiologyPathophysiologyIschemiaSurgeryInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An indirect carotid cavernous fistula (CCF) is an abnormal connection between the cavernous sinus and internal or external carotid artery. Indirect CCFs often occur spontaneously, particularly in the setting of vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and atherosclerosis. Microvascular ischemic nerve palsies (NPs) share these vascular risk factors. However, to date, no temporal relationship between microvascular ischemic NP and indirect CCF occurring sequentially has been reported. We describe the cases of 64- and 73-year-old women who developed indirect CCFs within 1-2 weeks after spontaneous resolution of a microvascular ischemic 4th NP. Both patients had complete resolution and an asymptomatic period between the 4th NP and CCF. This case highlights the shared pathophysiology and risk factors between microvascular ischemic NPs and CCFs, and emphasizes that CCFs should be kept in the differential diagnosis for red eye or recurrent diplopia in patients with previous microvascular ischemic NP.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.272
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in OphthalmologySame topicVascular Malformations Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207