MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7139127517 · doi:10.65035/1x7ty531

<b>FREQUENCY OF MENTAL NERVE PARESTHESIA IN PARASYMPHYSIS FRACTURES</b>

2025· article· W7139127517 on OpenAlexaff
Sehrish Liaqat, Nabeela Riaz, Hafiz Waqas Ahmed, Dr. Sana Arif, Mahnoor Azhar, Taimor Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of medical & health sciences review. · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoesthesiaMental nerveNerve injuryDepression (economics)Mandibular fractureChin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify the frequency of mental nerve injury in parasymphysis fractures. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mayo Hospital Lahore, over a period of six months. Methods: During study 78 patients were enrolled. The patients who reported to have anesthesia / hypoesthesia (numbness) of lower lip area on the affected side were considered to have mental nerve injury. Data was entered and analyzed in SPSS 26. Results: Among 78 patients, 89.7% were males and mean age was 32.69+10.523 years. The main cause of trauma among majority of patients (78.2%) was road traffic accident, 65.4% patients had simple fractures, 52.6% patients had presence of teeth for IMF and 21.8% patients had mental nerve injury. Association of mental nerve injury with clinical and fracture related characteristics showed significant results (P<0.05) regarding gender, fracture site, types of fractures and presence of teeth for IMF. Conclusion: Study concluded that the frequency of mental nerve injury was 21.8%. It was more prevalent among male patients and the most significant cause was road traffic accidents.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.374 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of medical & health sciences review.Same topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207