MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415106497 · doi:10.1007/s00586-025-09450-3

Normative cerebellar tonsil position in healthy individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4415106497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Veeresh Veeresh, Mamatha Hosapatna, Girish Menon, Mithun Shekar, Nupur Pruthi, Aamna Kausar

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Spine Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeAsymptomaticNeurosurgeryPosition (finance)Cerebellar diseasesMagnetic resonance imagingMEDLINESampling (signal processing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The cerebellar tonsils are critical anatomical landmarks in craniospinal imaging, yet normative data describing their position in healthy populations are sparse and inconsistent. Defining statistically grounded reference values may support anatomical interpretation in conditions such as Chiari malformation type I, while recognising that clinical diagnosis remains symptom-driven. OBJECTIVE: To determine the average cerebellar tonsil position relative to the McRae line using MRI, data from asymptomatic individuals with normal craniospinal MRI were synthesised to provide a standardised normative benchmark. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies were identified through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science searches up to 14 May 2025. Eligible studies were MRI-based cross-sectional designs reporting mean cerebellar tonsil position, standard deviation, and sample size in healthy populations. Risk of bias (ROB) was evaluated using the Adaptation of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Cross-Sectional Studies (NOS-xs). A Der Simonian-Laird random-effects model was used to calculate pooled means, and heterogeneity was assessed via I², Tau², and Cochran's Q. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test robustness. Certainty of evidence was appraised using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fifteen studies encompassing 3,940 healthy individuals were included. The pooled mean cerebellar tonsil position was + 1.13 mm above the McRae line with reference interval (- 4.67 to + 6.93 mm). However, existing studies show substantial heterogeneity (I² = 98%, p < 0.01), underscoring the need for cautious application and further standardisation. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the consistency of findings across multiple exclusion strategies. Certainty of evidence was rated as moderate due to variation in study quality and reporting. DISCUSSION: The pooled estimate provides a normative reference for cerebellar tonsil position in healthy individuals. However, high heterogeneity (I² = 98%), moderate ROB, and geographic clustering limit generalizability. These findings may aid anatomical interpretation, but clinical decisions should remain symptom-guided. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled estimate establishes a normative reference for the position of the cerebellar tonsils in asymptomatic individuals with normal craniospinal MRI findings. This information can assist in the anatomical interpretation of craniospinal imaging. However, considerable variability and geographic clustering can limit its general applicability. Clinical decisions should continue to be guided by symptoms, and future studies should use standardised imaging techniques and broader sampling methods to enhance diagnostic relevance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Spine JournalSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207