MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398255816 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2024.106

F.4 Anatomical assessment and comparative analysis of ventricular access points in pterional approach: a cadaveric study

2024· article· en· W4398255816 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ulaş Cıkla, MK Baskaya

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaveric spasmCoronal planeMedicineVentricleCerebral ventricleLateral ventriclesVentricular systemThird ventricleAnatomySurgeryHydrocephalusCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In early-stage transsylvian aneurysm surgery, achieving brain relaxation is crucial for the safe exposure of aneurysms; however, in cases of tight, hemorrhagic brains, ventricular drainage is often required. Although Paine/Samson initially proposed a ventricular access point in the frontal horn of the lateral ventricle, and numerous points and techniques have been described since, their consistency and success rates have not undergone rigorous evaluation through comparative cadaveric anatomical studies. Methods: We injected 2 cc agar-agar solutions with distinct colors into the lateral ventricles of twelve cadaveric brains, utilizing four described points, followed by refrigeration at 4°C for one hour for each injection. Next, the brains were sectioned in the coronal plane at 2 cm intervals for evaluation. We assessed the efficacy of the injections in reaching the ventricles and measured the ventricular dimensions, in addition to calculating the Evans’ index for each brain. Results: Injections at Paine/Samson’s point achieved a 100% success rate, followed by Hyunn’s point with a 91.6% success rate. The success rates at Temporal point and Park point were 83.3% and 58.3%, respectively. Conclusions: We emphasize the significance of direct ventricle puncture technique and our findings indicate that the classical Paine/Samson point is the most reliable among the evaluated methods.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207