Pediatric Facial Burns: Is Facial Transplantation the New Reconstructive Psychosurgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current pediatric burn care has resulted in survival being the expectation for most children. Composite tissue allotransplantation in the form of face or hand transplantation may present opportunities for reconstructive surgery of patients with burns. The present paper addresses the question "Could facial transplantation be of therapeutic benefit in the treatment of pediatric burns associated with facial disfigurement?" METHODS: Therapeutic benefit of facial transplantation was defined in terms of psychiatric adjustment and quality of life (QOL). To ascertain therapeutic benefit, studies of pediatric burn injury and associated psychiatric adjustment and QOL in children, adolescents and adults with pediatric burns, were reviewed. RESULTS: Pediatric burn injury is associated with anxiety disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive disorders. Many patients with pediatric burns do not routinely access psychiatric care for these disorders, including those for psychiatric assessment of suicidal risk. A range of QOL outcomes were reported; four were predominantly satisfactory and one was predominantly unsatisfactory. DISCUSSION: Facial transplantation may reduce the risk of depressive and anxiety disorders other than post-traumatic stress disorder. Facial transplantation promises to be the new reconstructive psychosurgery, because it may be a surgical intervention with the potential to reduce the psychiatric suffering associated with pediatric burns. Furthermore, patients with pediatric burns may experience the stigma of disfigurement and psychiatric conditions. The potential for improved appearance with facial transplantation may reduce this 'dual stigmata'. Studies combining surgical and psychiatric research are warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".