Comparison of anterolateral thigh and radial forearm free flap donor site morbidity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated patient-reported outcome of the donor site in patients following head and neck cancer reconstruction. Patients who had undergone cancer reconstruction using either an anterolateral thigh or a radial forearm free flap and who were at least 6 months postsurgery were included and contacted by telephone. There were 37 patients (mean age 61 years, standard deviation 16 years) with 18 anterolateral thigh flaps and 19 radial forearm flaps. The majority of patients were not bothered by scar appearance, light touch, numbness or pain. Significantly more females (P = 0.038) and more patients with radial forearm flaps (P = 0.045) were bothered by the cold at the donor site and more females reported that the shape of the operated extremity was different (P = 0.009). Donor site morbidity is not significant following a radial forearm or anterolateral thigh free flap and the reconstruction should be based upon individual patient factors and surgeon expertise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".