MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546514828 · doi:10.1002/9781118655412.ch25

Oral tongue reconstruction

2015· other· en· W1546514828 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Archibald, Michael K. Gupta, Achilleas Thoma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTongueSwallowingMedicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reconstruction of the oral tongue following cancer resection is best performed with attention to the surgical defect that has been created and the probable deficits in speech and swallowing. For the anterior oral tongue, preservation or reconstruction of a mobile sensate tip is the goal. For the mid-third oral tongue, restoration of both tissue bulk and mobility are the goals. For the posterior third oral tongue, tissue bulk to aid in food bolus transport and palato-glossal contact is the goal. Various reconstruction options exist for each site, ranging across the spectrum of primary or secondary closure, skin grafts, intraoral flaps, extraoral pedicled flaps and free flaps. Based on the surgical defect, these reconstructive options are evaluated for their contribution to restoring functional deficits.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207