Reconstruction of cheek defects: a review of current techniques
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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The article discusses the fundamental principles of cheek reconstruction and summarizes recently published techniques and reviews in the field. RECENT FINDINGS: Reconstruction of the cheek is a complex endeavour. Patient, defect, and potential donor site factors must be carefully considered in the restoration of cheek form and function. Fortunately the surgeon, each with his or her own personal preferences and experience, has a wealth of techniques available from which to choose. New flaps and techniques are described including recent reviews of traditional techniques. Examples include a modification to the Mustardé flap, an axial pedicled flap from the radix nasi region, a technique of superficial musculoaponeurotic system plication to achieve primary closure of large defects, and reviews of the submental island flap, the subcutaneous cervicofacial flap, the medial sural artery perforator flap, and the anterolateral thigh flap. SUMMARY: Surgical innovation and conscientious assessments of traditional techniques continue to advance the field of cheek reconstruction towards improved aesthetic and functional outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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