Scoping review of the literature on shoulder impairments and disability after neck dissection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article was to provide a review of the literature on shoulder disability after neck dissection. METHODS: A literature review was performed using Ovid Medline and Embase databases. A total of 306 abstracts and 78 full-text articles were reviewed. Forty-two articles were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Patients undergoing nerve-sacrifice neck dissections have greater disability and lower quality of life scores than those undergoing neck dissections with the least manipulation (ie, selective neck dissections). Shoulder impairments can still occur in patients undergoing selective neck dissections. Disability typically improves over time in patients undergoing nerve-sparing neck dissections. CONCLUSION: There was significant variability in the literature in terms of the prevalence and recovery of shoulder morbidity after neck dissection. This variability may not just be related to surgical technique or rehabilitation, but also to study design, definitions, and the variability in disability questionnaires used.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it