MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903486337 · doi:10.11575/prism/45308

A national study of choanal atresia in tertiary care centers in Canada – part II: clinical management

2021· other· en· W6903486337 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoanal atresiaTertiary careAtresiaRetrospective cohort studySurgical procedures

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background To evaluate the clinical management of choanal atresia (CA) in tertiary centers across Canada. Methods Multi-centre case series involving six tertiary care pediatric hospitals across Canada. Retrospective chart review of patients born between 1980 and 2010 diagnosed with choanal atresia to a participating center. Results The health charts of 215 patients (59.6% female) with choanal atresia (CA) were reviewed. Mean age of initial surgical repair was 0.8 months for bilateral CA, and 48.6 months for unilateral CA. Approaches of surgical repair consisted of endoscopic transnasal (31.7%), non-endoscopic transnasal (42.6%), and transpalatal (25.2%). Stents were used on 70.7% of patients. Forty-nine percent of patients were brought back to the OR for a planned second look; stent removal being the most common reason (86.4%). Surgical success rate of initial surgeries was 54.1%. Surgical technique was not associated with rate of restenosis [χ2 (2) = 1.6, p = .46]. Conclusions The present study is the first national multi-institutional study exploring the surgical outcomes of CA over a 30-year period. The surgical repair of CA presents a challenge to otolaryngologists, as the rate of surgical failure is high. The optimal surgical approach, age at surgical repair, use of stents, surgical adjuncts, and need for planned second look warrant further investigation. Graphical abstract

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgaryFrench-language works237,207