MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1722225660 · doi:10.1177/229255031001800401

A Case of Autologous Microfat Grafting in Lip Reconstruction of a Whistle Deformity Following Cancer Treatment

2010· article· en· W1722225660 on OpenAlexaffvenue
James Belyea, Robert D. Hart, Jonathan Trites, SM Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeformityGraftingCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A whistle deformity is defined as a deficiency in the vertical length of the lip so that the free margins of the upper and lower lips do not meet normally, giving the appearance of whistling. This is a common secondary deformity of the vermilion in patients with cleft lip. A case involving a 61-year-old man who developed a whistle deformity as a result of two wedge resections and postoperative radiotherapy for treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the lower lip is presented. Hyaluronic acid-based tissue filler and autologous microfat transplantation to the lower lip were used for definitive management of the patient's whistle deformity. After one year of follow-up, the patient was pleased with the overall result and noted marked improvement of his oral competence and overall appearance of the lip. The present case demonstrates that microfat transplantation is a viable option for correcting a whistle deformity, not only after surgery, but also following adjuvant radiotherapy - both of which potentially reduce graft viability secondary to decreased vascularity of the recipient site.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207