MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398255942 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2024.211

P.108 Rate and clinical utility of early postoperative CT head in adult craniotomy

2024· article· en· W4398255942 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
IE Harmsen, I Fatokun, C. Gregory Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsAlberta Hospital EdmontonWorkers Compensation Board of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCraniotomyRadiological weaponSurgeryMedical recordHematomaPneumocephalusAnesthesiaComputed tomography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Postoperative cranial neurosurgical imaging practices are highly variable. We evaluated the rate and utility of early postoperative computed tomography (EPCT, defined as a CT head scan within 24h of surgery) in consecutive adult craniotomies. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive adult craniotomies at the University of Alberta Hospital over a 45-day period (17/09/2022 to 01/11/2022). Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract data on the rate, timing, and utility of EPCT as well as the rate of neurologic deterioration and repeat surgical intervention. Results: A total of 56 patients (27 female; 55.5 ± 2.1 yrs, range: 19-84 years) were identified. All patients underwent EPCT, including 10/56 (17.9%) on POD0 and 46/56 (82.1%) on POD1. Surgical complications (bleeding, extensive pneumocephalus, edema, ischemia) were identified in 8/56 (14.3%) of the EPCT, of which 6 (10.7%) were reported to have neurologic deterioration and 2 (3.6%) underwent further surgical intervention (hematoma evacuation). Clinical and radiological postoperative changes were highly related (p=5.16e-06), and the rate of EPCT being adverse without neurologic deficit, managed surgically, was 1/56 (1.8%). Conclusions: EPCT is routine practice. Given the low rate (1.8%) of repeat surgical intervention in the absence of neurologic deficit despite abnormal EPCT, omitting EPCT in neurologically intact patients may be warranted.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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