P.120 Traumatic penetrating head injury by crossbow projectiles: a case report and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Penetrating head injury secondary to crossbows is a rare encounter in neurosurgical practice with only few cases reported in the literature. Methods: Chart review and literature review. Results: A 31-year-old man with a previous psychiatric history sustained a self-inflicted injury using a crossbow he bought from a department store. The patient arrived neurologically intact. He was not able to verbalize due to jaw fixation with the arrow. The trajectory of the object showed an entry point at the floor of the oral cavity and an exit through the calvarium just off the midline. The oral and nasal cavities, along with the palate and the skull base, and the left frontal lobe were all breached (figure). No vascular injury was identified on imaging (figure). The arrow was surgically removed in the operating room after establishing an elective surgical airway. A planned delayed CSF leak repair was performed. The patient made a substantial recovery and was discharged home in good status. Conclusions: - Multidisciplinary team is key. Vascular imaging should be done pre and post-intervention. Surgical approach is determined by the trajectory. Psychiatric illness and access to weapons are major risk factors. Elective surgical airway might be indicated.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".