MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988205773 · doi:10.1002/hed.21042

Quality of life in patients with maxillectomy prostheses

2009· article· en· W1988205773 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)SwallowingRehabilitationIntrusivenessPhysical therapyDentistryPsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study sought to determine patient quality of life and function after prosthetic rehabilitation for maxillary and palate defects following cancer resection. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients were identified, 42 participated in the study (61%). The Obturator Functioning Scale (OFS) and 4 general quality of life measures (Mental Health Inventory [MHI], Impact of Events Scale [IES], Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale [IIRS], and Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]) were correlated with clinical parameters. RESULTS: Leakage when swallowing foods was the most frequently reported problem with the obturator (29%). Positive correlation was noted between the OFS and both the IES subscales (p < .01) and CES-D (p < .001). Difficulty with speech and eating was associated with increased avoidance of social situations. The surgical approach had a significant effect on the OFS, IES, and MHI subscales (p < .01). CONCLUSION: These results support the findings that good obturator function is associated with a better quality of life.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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