Use of a Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale to Evaluate the V-Y Advancement Flap for Reconstruction of Medial Cheek Defects
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: The V-Y advancement flap (VYF) is not commonly used to reconstruct defects located on the medial cheek. The quantitative assessment of VYF for this indication has not been reported. In evaluation of surgical scarring, the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) has been validated for use in burn and breast surgery scars, but its usefulness in dermatologic surgery has not been determined. OBJECTIVE: To present our experience with the use of the POSAS to assess the success of VYF reconstruction for surgical defects on the medial cheek. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fourteen patients with medium to large (>5 cm(2) ) medial cheek Mohs defects reconstructed using VYF were assessed. Final cosmetic and functional results were analyzed after a follow-up of 6 months to 2 years (mean follow-up 21 months) using the POSAS. RESULTS: Observers using the POSAS gave a mean score for VYF reconstructions of 9.1 ± 2.3 (5 represents normal skin, 50 represents worst imaginable scar). Patients using the POSAS gave a mean score for VYF reconstructions of 10 ± 4 (6 representing normal skin, 60 representing worst imaginable scar). CONCLUSION: VYF reconstruction of medium to large defects of the medial cheek is a useful option. The POSAS may be a helpful tool for evaluating reconstructive results in dermatologic surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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