A comparison of skin and muscle for cortical revascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The purpose of this project was to compare the ability of skin and muscle to revascularize cortical bone segments in the canine distal limb. A model mimicking severe combined soft tissue and orthopaedic injury with bone devascularization involving the canine metatarsus was developed. Soft tissue defects were reconstructed with a reverse saphenous conduit flap or a free trapezius muscle flap. Cortical bone blood flow was determined by the radiolabeled microsphere method at 21 days post-reconstruction. In addition cortical porosity, the amount of fluorescent labelled intracortical new bone, and the maximum depth of periosteal new bone were determined. Significant differences were not detected between skin and muscle reconstructions for any of the measured parameters of cortical revascularization. The mean values for cortical bone blood flow were higher than expected from previous studies, and did not correlate with subjective assessments of adhesion quality between bone and reconstructive tissue onlay. The reverse saphenous conduit flap, and the free trapezius muscle flap, may respectively provide superior blood supply to underlying bone than local random pattern skin and local pedicled muscle. The reverse saphenous conduit flap has a robust and reliable vascular supply, unlike that to random pattern skin. The free transfer of muscle maintains a vigorous blood supply, and has shown improvements in blood flow over pedicled muscle. Blood flow to both tissue types may be favourably affected by the denervation associated with transfer, causing arteriolar vasodilation and reductions in vascular resistance. In this model, comparable revascularization of cortical bone at 21 days was seen beneath reverse saphenous conduit flaps and free trapezius muscle flaps. However, a role for endosteal revascularization cannot be excluded. Cortical revascularization by skin and muscle reconstruction was compared at 21 days in a canine metatarsal model. Significant differences in cortical bone blood flow were not detected
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".