MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057156334 · doi:10.2310/7070.2007.0023

Clavipectoral Osteomyocutaneous Free Flap in Oromandibular Reconstruction

2007· article· en· W2057156334 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hadi Seikaly, Ali Moshaver, Jason Chau, Jeffrey Harris, Karen H. Calhoun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryVascularitySoft tissueFree flapClavicleFixation (population genetics)Head and neckOsteoradionecrosisMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Radiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Mandibular reconstruction continues to challenge most head and neck reconstructive surgeons despite the tremendous advances in surgical and fixation techniques. We recently described the clavipectoral osteocutaneous flap for mandibular reconstruction. This flap encompasses the clavicle and the clavicular head of the pectoralis major with overlying skin. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to report our prospective clinical experience with the use of clavipectoral osteocutaneous flap in the reconstruction of oromandibular defects. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Five patients with significant mandibular defects underwent reconstruction using the newly described clavipectoral flap. All patients had shoulder range of motion testing preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Panorex and bone scans were obtained on the seventh postoperative day. RESULTS: All five flaps survived. The transferred clavicles demonstrated good vascularity on the postoperative bone scans. The shoulder morbidity was minimal, with all patients resuming their preoperative level of activity. CONCLUSIONS: The clavipectoral flap has bone and soft tissue components that are especially suited for composite mandibular defects, but it should be used as a second-line flap owing to the short pedicle and the regular need for vein grafts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207