Functional Outcomes after Primary Mandibular Resection and Reconstruction with the Fibular Free Flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined prospectively the functional outcomes of a cohort of patients who have undergone mandibulectomy and primary fibular free flap reconstruction, with particular emphasis on longitudinal comparison of the preoperative function with that in the postoperative and post-radiation therapy time periods. METHODS: Speech and swallowing data were gathered at three evaluation times (preoperatively, pre-radiation therapy, and post-radiation therapy) for patients treated for oral cavity cancer with mandibular resection and reconstruction with a fibular free flap. Single words and sentences were recorded and analyzed for speech intelligibility. Modified barium swallows of liquid, pudding, and cookie consistencies were analyzed and graded for problems in the oral preparatory and oral phase according to the University of Chicago Center for Speech and Swallowing Disorders Oropharyngeal Mobility Data Form. RESULTS: There was no significant difference across any of the evaluation times for single-word or sentence intelligibility. The swallowing data showed no instances of post-treatment aspiration or laryngeal penetration. There were also no significant differences in any of the swallowing parameters across treatment times. CONCLUSIONS: Osteocutaneous fibular free flaps are an excellent reconstructive option for mandibular and floor of the mouth defects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".