Reconstruction of the High-risk Chest Wall With Endoscopically Assisted Latissimus Dorsi Harvest and Expander Placement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Certain patients requesting breast reconstruction may be described as having a high-risk chest wall with regard to implant loss and well-documented high complication rates. Such patients have a combination of one or more of the following: previous chest wall radiotherapy, heavy smoking, and thin, tethered chest wall flaps. If autologous transfer is not appropriate for such patients then reconstruction may be difficult. In this specific patient group the assistance of endoscopy has been used to raise the latissimus dorsi muscle to cover an expander placed within an endoscopically created chest wall pocket. The first 12 consecutive cases using this technique are discussed, showing an expander loss rate of 8% for the primary implant placement. Ramakrishnan V, Southern SJ, Tzafetta R. Reconstruction of the high-risk chest wall with endoscopically assisted latissimus dorsi harvest and expander placement. Ann Plast Surg 2000;44:250-258
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".