Facial Reanimation After Intratemporal Facial Nerve Schwannoma Resection: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To systematically analyze the outcomes of reanimation techniques that have been described for patients undergoing non-fascicle sparing resection of intratemporal facial schwannomas. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Results: Eight hundred forty studies were screened with 22 meeting inclusion criteria comprising 266 patients. Most facial nerve reanimations (81.2%) were performed using an interposition nerve graft. The remaining patients underwent hypoglossal-facial nerve transposition (13.9%), primary anastomosis (3.4%), and free muscle transfer (0.1%). Of the reported interposition grafts, the two most utilized were the great auricular (113/199) and sural (86/199) nerves. Interposition nerve grafts resulted in significantly better outcomes in facial nerve function postoperatively than hypoglossal-facial transposition (3.48 vs. 3.92; p < 0.01). There was no difference between interposition grafts. Conclusion: This study systematically reports that interposition nerve grafts, after resection of intratemporal facial schwannoma, result in superior outcomes than hypoglossal-facial nerve transposition in these 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 it