The impact of nasal reconstruction following tumour resection on psychosocial functioning, a clinical‐empirical exploration
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: Total or partial nasal amputation following tumour resection is one of the more severe facial disfigurements. Successful nasal reconstruction can therefore be regarded as restoring a patient's psychosocial health. The objective of this study, therefore, was to evaluate different determinants of patient's psychosocial functioning and their effect on patient satisfaction after nasal reconstruction. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with a case-control study design was conducted. Level of satisfaction with nasal appearance and psychosocial functioning were assessed with validated questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 30 consecutive patients were recruited. They were treated between November 2001 and May 2005 for (sub)total nasal defects following radical tumour resection. For the control group 99 consented to participate. Social anxiety and avoidance were scored significantly higher within the patient group (p=0.01). Patients cope significantly more passive than controls (p=0.04). Self-esteem levels did not differ significantly between patients and controls (p=0.22). Determinants of satisfaction with nasal reconstruction were self-esteem (p=0.0001), active coping strategy (p=0.001), and passive coping strategy (p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: Nasal reconstruction has an impact on psychosocial functioning of nasal reconstruction patients. In addition, self-esteem and coping strategy are important determinants of satisfaction with nasal reconstruction, and should be held in mind when treating a patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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