An Ideal Method for Pressure Sore Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pressure sore reconstruction is quite difficult for plastic surgeons because of long-term high recurrence rates. We designed a freestyle perforator-based flap for pressure sore reconstruction considering pressure sore recurrence and further reconstruction. METHODS: We used a handheld Doppler device to locate a perforator position just adjacent to the pressure ulcer. In a series of 34 patients, we used 37 perforator-based flaps to reconstruct 25 sacral, 5 ischial, and 4 trochanteric ulcers. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 37 flaps healed uneventfully without complication. One patient had a flap that totally necrosed, 3 had partial flap necrosis, 3 had wound dehiscence, 1 died 3 days postoperatively, and recurrence developed in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: We used the freestyle perforator-based fasciocutaneous flap for pressure sore management with good success. These flaps are easy to design and provide good versatility for coverage. Cooperation of surgical skills and good postoperative care also contributed to the lower recurrence rates and satisfactory results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".