Reliability of Vascular Territory for a Circumflex Scapular Artery–Based Flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cutaneous vascular territories of the circumflex scapular artery and the areas supplied by perforators from neighboring anatomical vascular territories, and also to define the safety limits of circumflex scapular artery-based flaps by means of fresh cadaver injection studies. METHODS: A total of 15 dorsal thoraxes from eight fresh cadavers were used in this study. After saline irrigation, contrast medium was injected into the subclavian artery of each specimen. Each full-thickness specimen of the posterior hemithorax was then radiographed to characterize vascular networks. RESULTS: The primary zone of the circumflex scapular artery was calculated to be 93.8 +/- 16.1 cm, which occupies a region smaller than that of the scapula. However, by capturing the secondary zone, which was composed of the territories supplied by adjacent perforators of the thoracodorsal artery, the dorsal intercostal artery, and the transverse cervical artery, potential flap survival dimensions extended beyond the scapular region. In fact, the potential zone was increased to 307.7 7 +/- 55.3 cm, which extended beyond the scapular spine, the inferior angle of the scapula, the posterior axillary line, and close to the midline of the back. CONCLUSIONS: The circumflex scapular artery is an appropriate source for harvesting a large fascial and fasciocutaneous flap based on a single perforating vessel. Surgeons should understand the limits of the circumflex scapular artery-based flap to make best use of it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".