Repair of Ocular-Oral Synkinesis of Postfacial Paralysis Using Cross-Facial Nerve Grafting
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
We present the surgical techniques and results of cross-facial nerve grafting that have been developed in the repair of ocular-oral synkinesis after facial paralysis. Eleven patients with ocular-oral synkinesis after facial paralysis underwent the cross-facial nerve grafting with facial nerve transposition at a tertiary academic hospital between 2003 and 2009. The patient selection for the study was based on the degree of disfigurement and facial function parameter rating using the Toronto Facial Grading System. The procedures used were surgeries done in two stages. All cases were followed up for 2 months to 6 years after the second surgery. The degree of improvement was evaluated at 6 to 7 months after the procedures. Six of the patients were followed up for more than 2 years after the stage-two surgery and demonstrated significant reduction in the ocular-oral synkinetic movements. The Toronto Facial Grading System scores from the postoperative follow-ups increased an average of 16 points (28%), and the patients had achieved symmetrical facial movement. We concluded that cross-facial nerve grafting with facial nerve branch transposition is effective and can be considered as an option for the repair of ocular-oral synkinesis after facial paralysis in select patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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