MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092854159 · doi:10.2310/7070.2004.03028

Deroofing Surgical Treatment for Pseudocyst of the Auricle

2004· article· en· W2092854159 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chao-Hsi Chang, Wen‐Rei Kuo, Chih-Hsin Lin, Ling‐Feng Wang, Kuen‐Yao Ho, Kun‐Bow Tsai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuricleSurgeryPinnaOtorhinolaryngologyComplicationLesionAsymptomaticDeformity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Pseudocyst of the auricle is characterized by asymptomatic swelling caused by an intracartilaginous accumulation of fluid. If left untreated, permanent deformity of the pinna may occur. Many modalities of treatment have been reported, but problems regarding recurrence and appearance remain. The purpose of this study was to introduce more reliable treatment for pseudocyst of the auricle. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Department of Otolaryngology, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. METHODS: The population used for the present report consisted of 10 patients with auricular pseudocyst that was unresponsive to aspiration followed by intralesional steroid injection or who declined conservative treatment. All patients were treated surgically with the deroofing method under local anaesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative clinical outcome and recurrence of the lesion. RESULTS: All patients had excellent cosmetic outcomes, and no recurrence or complication occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Deroofing surgery for pseudocyst of the auricle is a safe, easy, and reliable procedure. If conservative measures fail or are declined by the patient, removal of the anterior cartilaginous leaflet of the lesion is an alternative method that can yield excellent results.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations28
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207