Carotid Body Tumours: Outcomes of a Multidisciplinary Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Carotid paragangliomas, or carotid body tumours (CBT), often present significant surgical challenges. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a multidisciplinary surgical approach on carotid body tumour resection and clinical outcomes. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent carotid body resection within the Calgary Health Region from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 2019 was conducted. Patient demographics, operation parameters, co-morbidity, post-operative complications and the usage of pre-operative embolization were compared using appropriate statistical methods. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Of the 49 patients included in this study, 28 underwent resection by a single specialty and 21 underwent resection by a multidisciplinary team. The multidisciplinary team operated on significantly larger (p < 0.001) and more complex CBTs (p = 0.006). When analyzed as a group, operating time (p < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (p = 0.019) were significantly longer for patients operated on by the multidisciplinary team, reflecting the greater complexity of the CBTs in the multidisciplinary cohort. However, a sub-group analysis of high Shamblin grade tumours by surgical team showed no differences. Pre-operative embolization was performed in 41% of cases. There were no post-operative deaths. Conclusions: Surgical management of CBTs can be challenging. However, we were unable to find any improvement in OR time, blood loss, length of hospital stays or complication rate in the multidisciplinary group. Pre-operative embolization did not significantly diminish intra-operative blood loss.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.012 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".