MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085220231 · doi:10.1097/sap.0b013e3181629a91

Which Venous System to Choose for Anastomosis in Head and Neck Reconstructions?

2008· article· en· W2085220231 on OpenAlex
Gary Ross, E. S. Ang, Alex Golger, Declan A. Lannon, Patrick Addison, Laura M. Snell, Christine B. Novak, Joan E. Lipa, Patrick Gullane, Peter C. Neligan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnastomosisSurgeryInternal jugular veinVenous thrombosisHead and neckVeinFree flap reconstructionExternal jugular veinLower limbs venous ultrasonographyFree flapSubclavian veinThrombosisCatheter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been postulated that venous thrombosis in free flap surgery necessitates the use of 2 venous anastomoses into different venous systems. We retrospectively analyzed a single surgeon's 10-year experience (August 1993 to August 2003) in primary free flap reconstruction for malignant tumors of the head and neck. Of 492 primary reconstructions that did not need a vein graft, vein loop, or cephalic turnover procedure, 251 used the internal jugular venous system as venous outflow, 140 used the subclavian system as outflow, and 101 used both. Two hundred thirty-eight of 251 (95%) of flaps utilizing the internal jugular venous system for outflow were successful compared with 129 of 140 (92%) of flaps utilizing the subclavian system. Where both venous systems were used the success rate was 101 of 101 (100%) (P < 0.05). Where possible, a second venous anastomosis should be performed utilizing both venous drainage systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.240 · 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