Neck and shoulder disability following reconstruction with the pectoralis major pedicled flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To conduct a comprehensive assessment of shoulder and neck function following the pectoralis major pedicled flap (PMPF) for head and neck reconstruction. DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: The study group consisted of laryngectomized patients who underwent PMPF and a control group of those who underwent standard laryngectomy. Bilateral quantitative measurements of shoulder strength and range of motion (ROM) and neck ROM by a blinded physiotherapist and subjective quality-of-life assessment using the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaires were collected. Lateral cervical radiographs in the neutral, flexion, and extension positions were evaluated by a blinded neuroradiologist. The main outcome measures were shoulder ROM, strength, and SPADI scores; physical and radiologic measurements of neck ROM; and NDI Score. RESULTS: Shoulder analysis showed a significantly reduced flexion angle (P = .043) and combined internal/external rotation angle on the operated side (P = .027) and a significant strength reduction for the flexion, external rotation, and adduction domains (P < .05). SPADI score analysis showed a significantly higher disability score (P = .017) and total score (P = .009) on the PMPF side. Neck physical analysis showed significant differences in extension (P = .013) and total ROM distances (P = .002) but not flexion (P = .184). The total flexion/extension angular ROM was reduced in the PMPF population (P = .05) due to a reduced neck extension excursion angle from a neutral position (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The PMPF for head and neck reconstruction is associated with a limitation in neck ROM attributed to a loss in extension and reduced shoulder strength and ROM.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".