MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396220086 · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000002948

Pediatric Congenital Anterior Skull Base Encephaloceles and Surgical Management: A Comparative Review of 22 Patients Treated Transnasally, Transcranially, or Combined Approach With a Review of the Literature

2024· review· en· W4396220086 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Kameda-Smith, Youngkyung Jung, Felice D’Arco, Richard Hewitt, Kristian Aquilina, Owase Jeelani

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurosurgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSkullSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anterior basal encephaloceles are considered a rare entity and are often associated with midline cerebral abnormalities. Those with a large skull base defect and herniation of brain parenchyma in the neonate or young infant present unique challenges for surgical management. METHODS: We analyzed the neurosurgical administrative and operative databases between 1986 and 2022 to determine clinical presentation, operative approach, and outcome of basal encephaloceles. RESULTS: Over the 36-year period, 27 pediatric anterior basal encephaloceles were managed, of which 22 had full documentation and images allowing comprehensive review. Mean age at presentation was 5 years (SD 4.94). The majority were transethmoidal encephaloceles (59%), followed by the transsphenoidal-sphenoethmoidal type (32%). Overall, 91% were managed surgically by a transcranial, endoscopic, or combined approach. Four children required subsequent procedures, predominantly for persistent cerebrospinal fluid leak. No significant differences in proportion of patients requiring interval/revision surgery after initial conservative, endoscopic endonasal, or transcranial surgery was identified. Neither age at surgery nor size of the defect on computed tomography scan was associated with the need for revision surgery. Size of cranial defect was significantly smaller in the endoscopic group ( P = .01). There was a historic tendency for younger children with larger defects to have a transcranial approach. With the addition of endoscopic skull base expertise, smaller defects in older children were more recently treated endoscopically. CONCLUSION: Basal encephaloceles are rare and complex lesions and are optimally managed within a skull base multidisciplinary team able to provide multiple approaches. Large skull base defects with brain parenchymal involvement often require a transcranial or combined transcranial-endoscopic approach.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurosurgerySame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207