Smile Reconstruction in Adults with Free Muscle Transfer Innervated by the Masseter Motor Nerve: Effectiveness and Cerebral Adaptation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study assesses the ability of the masseter motor nerve-innervated microneurovascular muscle transfer to produce an effective smile in adult patients with bilateral and unilateral facial paralysis. METHODS: The operation consists of a one-stage microneurovascular transfer of a portion of the gracilis muscle that is innervated with the masseter motor nerve. The muscle is inserted into the cheek and attached to the mouth to produce a smile. The outcomes assessed were the amount of movement of the transferred muscle; the aesthetic quality of the smile; the control, use, and spontaneity of the smile; and the functional effects on eating, drinking, and speech. The study included 27 patients aged 16 to 61 years who received 45 muscle transfers. RESULTS: All 45 muscle transfers developed movement. The commissure movement averaged 13.0 +/- 4.7 mm at an angle of 47 +/- 15 degrees above the horizontal, and the mid upper lip movement averaged 8.3 +/- 3.0 mm at 42 +/- 17 degrees. Age did not affect the amount of movement. Patients older than 50 years had the same amount of movement as patients younger than 26 years (p = 0.605). Ninety-six percent of patients were satisfied with their smile. CONCLUSIONS: A spontaneous smile, the ability to smile without thinking about it, occurred routinely in 59 percent and occasionally in 29 percent of patients. Eighty-five percent of patients learned to smile without biting. Age did not affect the degree of spontaneity of smiling or the patient's ability to smile without biting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it