Colorimetric Evaluation of Facial Skin and Free Flap Donor Sites in Various Ethnic Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal colour match for free tissue donor sites transferred to defects of the cheek and neck in a multicultural population. DESIGN: A prospective measurement of the colour of potential free flap donor sites and recipient sites in healthy volunteers. SETTING: A tertiary care academic health science centre. METHODS: Sixty-four healthy volunteers (Caucasian, black, South Asian, Southeast Asian) underwent noninvasive skin colour measurement of the cheek and neck, as well as a standard set of potential free tissue donor sites using a Minolta CR 300 (Konica-Minolta Canada; Markham, ON, Canada) chromameter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measurement was done using derived colour measurements based on the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage or International Commission on Light (CIE) L*a*b* tristimulus values. E* is a derived value of colour difference between sites using the L*a*b* measures. Statistical analysis was done using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Variations exist between optimal donor sites in individuals of different ethnic backgrounds. Mean E* values suggest that in Caucasians, Southeast Asians, and South Asians, the upper extremity and trapezius flaps most closely approximate the recipient sites. In blacks, the variation in mean E* values is small and a wide variety of flaps provide a colour match to the cheek and neck. Luminance values support the observations regarding E*. DISCUSSION: Wide variations exist between individuals of different ethnic backgrounds in terms of optimal donor sites for the best colour match to surgical defects of the cheek and neck. In Caucasians, it appears that upper extremity sites, including the forearm and lateral arm flaps, provide the best colour match. Similar observations can be made in South Asians and Southeast Asians, with upper extremity flaps providing the best colour match. In blacks, there does not seem to be much variation in colour across the commonly used donor site, and a larger panel of flaps will provide an appropriate colour match in this subset of 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".