The Internal Mammary Artery Perforator Flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief The anatomic basis for the internal artery mammary perforator (IMAP) flap is described in this cadaveric study, together with a clinical case report. The IMAP flap is based on a single or double perforator of the internal mammary artery that is included in the pedicle for added length. It provides a very useful source of local tissue with skin of good texture and color for head and neck reconstruction and, being muscle free, is thin. With preservation of the anterior cutaneous branch of the intercostal nerve, the flap has the potential to be sensate. A large area can be covered, particularly if bilateral flaps are raised. The donor site can be closed directly. In selected patients, it offers an excellent option for use in head and neck reconstruction and should be considered as an alternative to the deltopectoral and pectoralis major flaps. A cadaver dissection study and a bilateral clinical case demonstrated the efficacy of the sensate “island deltopectoral flap” based on perforators of the internal mammary vessels and nerves.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".