MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101639293 · doi:10.48620/92074

Intraoperative Ultrasound in Chiari 1 Decompression: Clarity or Confusion? A Systematic Review.

2025· article· en· W7101639293 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access CRIS of the University of Bern · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicsolar cell performance optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecompressionChiari I malformationRetrospective cohort studyProspective cohort studyUltrasoundRelative riskPosterior fossaResection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background And Objectives Patients with symptomatic Chiari malformation type 1 (CM-1) usually undergo either bone-only posterior fossa decompression (PFD) or a more invasive procedure involving dural expansion with or without tonsillar resection (PFD+). PFD+ may be more effective but it carries a higher risk of complications. Intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) may help determine whether PFD alone is sufficient, although specific criteria and its role in surgical decision making are not yet defined.Methods A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, using search terms related to iUS, intraoperative sonography, and CM-1. Extracted data included demographics, surgical methods, iUS criteria, and outcomes. Conversion rates and the positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated to quantify iUS effectiveness. Conversion rate was defined as the proportion of cases requiring secondary PFD+ after initial PFD. PPV was based on the number of successful PFDs relative to all initial PFDs. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.Results From 202 initial articles, 1 prospective and 8 retrospective studies were included, covering 844 pediatric and adult patients. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 1 study had a low, 3 moderate, and 5 high risk of bias. To assess decompression sufficiency, 8 studies used qualitative iUS criteria, whereas 1 used quantitative thresholds. Follow-up time ranged from 1 to 48 months, with varied outcome measures. Conversion rates ranged from 0% to 16% and PPV from 0.857 to 1.000, depending on the study. Conversion surgery rates were comparable with reoperation rates reported from studies without iUS.Conclusion The available evidence does not yet support iUS as a robust testing method to inform intraoperative decision making regarding the extent of decompression, due to the heterogeneity of its application, and the absence of standardized assessment criteria. We propose a reporting framework incorporating all currently reported criteria to induce standardization and guide 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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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