The Use of Local Anesthetic Motor Block to Demonstrate the Potential Outcome of Depressor Labii Inferioris Resection in Patients with Facial Paralysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: If a patient with unilateral facial paralysis has marked depressor activity on the normal side, the appearance of the lower lip when smiling is asymmetrical. Defunctioning the muscle on the contralateral side to the palsy can restore balance. This can be achieved by resecting a portion of the depressor labii inferioris muscle on the nonparalyzed side. However, the decision to resect normal muscle may be difficult for many patients. This article presents the role of a local anesthetic motor block in temporarily paralyzing the muscle before patients decide whether permanent resection will meet their needs. METHOD: A phone questionnaire with 15 patients who received motor muscle blockage before deciding to have depressor labii inferioris muscle resection was conducted. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of the patients who underwent the local anesthetic motor block stated that it gave them valuable information regarding the outcome of their surgery and influenced their decision to undertake definitive depressor muscle resection. CONCLUSION: A trial by local anesthetic before depressor inferioris muscle resection provides patients with valuable insight into the likely outcome of the surgery.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".