Cosmetic Rostral Nasal Reconstruction After Nasal Planum and Premaxilla Resection: Technique and Results in Two Dogs
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
OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel reconstructive technique after nasal planum and premaxilla resection. STUDY DESIGN: Case report. ANIMALS: Dogs (n=2) with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the nasal planum. METHODS: A 9-year-old neutered female Labrador retriever (dog 1) and an 11-year-old neutered male Golden retriever (dog 2) had resection of the nasal planum and premaxilla for treatment of locally invasive SCC. Reconstruction of a nasal planum facsimile was based on use of the nonhaired pigmented margins of bilateral labial mucocutaneous rotation-advancement flaps. RESULTS: Reconstruction of the premaxilla by construction of a nasal planum facsimile resulted in uncomplicated wound healing and improved cosmesis. There was no tumor recurrence at 1290 (dog 1) and 210 (dog 2) days after surgery. CONCLUSION: Reconstruction of a nasal planum facsimile was successfully performed without complications in 2 dogs with high owner satisfaction with cosmetic appearance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This technique represents a significant advancement in surgical cosmetic outcome, may potentially reduce postoperative complications, and should be considered for dogs requiring nasal reconstruction after nasal planum resection with premaxillectomy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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