MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398781324 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2024.243

P.142 The use of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging for endoscopic transnasal transsphenoid surgery in children

2024· article· en· W4398781324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
N Balasubramaniam, Marc A. Tewfik, J Shwartz, Sam J. Daniel, Tobial McHugh, Roy Dudley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterventional magnetic resonance imagingMedicineIntraoperative MRIMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryCraniopharyngiomaRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sellar and suprasellar pediatric lesions are uncommon. Endoscopic transnasal transphenoidal surgery (ETTS) is the preferred treatment, but early post-op MRI is hindered by sphenoidal packing. This study aims to assess iMRI safety and efficacy in pediatric ETTS cases. Methods: We performed a retrospective review from Jan 01, 2015 to Dec 31, 2022, evaluating use of iMRI. We determined if the goals of the surgery (biopsy, cyst decompression, subtotal resection, gross total resection) were met, and iMRI’s influence on surgery outcomes. We examined patient age, surgery duration, length of stay, histopathology results, surgical complications, post-op MRIs within 1 month, and tumor progression/recurrence. Results: Over eight years, 20 pediatric ETTS procedures, 14 with iMRI, were conducted. Achieving goals in 13 cases, iMRI prompted extra surgery once. Two adenomas progressed, requiring a second surgery, and craniopharyngioma cases had complications, needing further interventions. Hospital stays varied (1-9 days), with a mean surgery duration of 6 hours and 47 minutes. The study underscores iMRI’s potential impact, stressing the necessity for more research in pediatric transsphenoidal surgeries. Conclusions: While intraoperative MRI in pediatric transsphenoidal surgeries may aid goal verification, this small study doesn’t conclusively demonstrate improved outcomes. Complication rates align with non-IMRI procedures, highlighting the need for further research.

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)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207