MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087470460 · doi:10.1054/jhsb.1999.0318

Immediate De-Syndactylization of the Reverse Radial Forearm Flap

2000· article· en· W2087470460 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad M. Al‐Qattan, Markus Ziesmann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForearmBlood supplyAnatomyDistal interphalangeal jointInterphalangeal JointDorsumSurgerySoft tissueRadial arteryUpper limbArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reverse radial forearm flap was used to cover soft tissue defects on the dorsal aspect of the hand and fingers with immediate de-syndactylization of the distal part of the flap in four cases. A total of 14 fingers were covered with de-syndactylized segments and these were divided into two groups. In group A (nine fingers) the defect extended to or just distal to the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint. The defect in group B (five fingers) was proximal to the PIP joint. Primary wound healing was observed in the proximal and lateral edges of the flap in all cases. However, delayed wound healing was observed in the distal edge of five of the 14 segments. All five segments that suffered from edge necrosis were from group A, indicating that longer segments are more likely to develop distal edge ischaemia. The fact that there was no major skin loss in any of the patients despite immediate de-syndactylization indicates that the reverse radial forearm flap has a reliable blood supply and can support a portion with a random blood supply without significant necrosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hand Surgery (European Volume)Same topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207