MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062229191 · doi:10.1017/s0022215113002235

Stapled double head and neck drape for otological procedures

2013· article· en· W2062229191 on OpenAlexaff
N Amin, Bin‐Jie Fu, John Rutka, Prodip Das

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Laryngology & Otology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCosmesisSurgerySurgical proceduresHead and neck

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: During otologic surgical procedures, there is often a dilemma when ensuring that hair is kept out of the surgical field. For a surgeon, the simplest and commonest technique is to liberally shave the head, but this can cause aesthetic concerns for the patient. Failure to keep the area hair-free can lead to a range of adverse surgical outcomes including wound infection and poor scar cosmesis. We describe a technique used in our department to effectively control hair during otologic surgical procedures, with no post-operative aesthetic concerns. METHODS: The use of re-usable or disposable surgical drapes with disposable skin staples can effectively exclude hair from the operative field throughout the procedure, without fear of the drapes slipping or losing adhesiveness. RESULTS: The authors have obtained good results both during and after surgery, using this quick and easily learnt method, with no cases of long-term skin damage or scarring. DISCUSSION: We find this to be an effective method of hair and skin preparation for otologic surgical procedures, and suggest it to fellow otorhinolaryngologists as a helpful alternative technique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Laryngology & OtologySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207