Early Free Tissue Transfer for Extremity Reconstruction Following High-Voltage Electrical Burn Injuries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the effectiveness of free tissue transfer in repairing high-voltage electrical extremity injuries with conventional multistage procedures. Patients were matched for age, sex, level of injury, voltage, and burn surface area; results were compared using the paired Student T test. Free tissue transfer was performed a mean of 19.1 +/- 10.6 days after the injury occurred, and definitive wound closure and limb salvage were achieved in 87.5% of patients after a mean of 23.0 +/- 9.1 days after the injury. The overall flap survival rate was 80% (13 of 15 flaps). Three flaps failed, two of which were lower-limb flaps at the knee level used for patients with injuries to both upper and lower limbs. Both patients required upper and lower proximal ipsilateral limb amputations. One upper-extremity flap failed after pedicle avulsion 4 days after surgery, but a second free tissue transfer was successful in salvaging this limb 4 days later. The number of surgeries, time required to achieve wound closure, and length of hospitalization were all statistically significantly lower in the free flap group compared with those in the conventional treatment group.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it