Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate reasons for revision rhinoplasty in a tertiary care setting to help reduce the incidence of revision rhinoplasty. METHODS: Retrospective review of 184 consecutive revision rhinoplasty cases performed by a single surgeon, evaluating the major reasons for patients seeking revision rhinoplasty surgery. RESULTS: The senior author performed 539 rhinoplasty cases during the period January 2001 to June 2003. 184 were revision cases. Within this group 56 were the author's own revisions and 128 had undergone primary surgery by "other surgeons." Major revision indications were airway in 109, crookedness in 70, residual hump in 31 and irregularity in 25 cases. Less common problems included inadequate reduction, tip asymmetry, tip bossae, saddle deformity and change of mind. The incidence of airway restriction and crookedness in the author group was significantly less than in the other surgeon group (p<.0001 and p = .0002 respectively). Other indications did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSION: The pattern of problems requiring revision rhinoplasty is changing as the improved skills of the surgeon are countered by the increased demands of the patient. The high incidence of nasal obstruction following rhinoplasty reminds us that attention to the airway should not be compromised in the focus on cosmetic outcome. Crookedness of the nose has become a notable complaint by a discriminating public. All patients undergoing primary rhinoplasty need advice that revision rhinoplasty may be necessary either during or after the healing phase.
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 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".