Oral sensation and function: A comparison of patients with innervated radial forearm free flap reconstruction to healthy matched controls
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
BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists for the use of innervated radial forearm free flap (RFFF) reconstruction of hemiglossectomy defects. This study reports on sensation, mastication, and speech outcomes for patients with innervated RFFF reconstruction of the anterior two-thirds of the tongue. METHODS: Sensation, mastication, and speech intelligibility were assessed in 8 patients and age- and sex-matched controls. RESULTS: Sensation of intact tongue tissue after reconstruction of the hemitongue did not differ from controls. Although some sensory ability was restored to patients' reconstructed tongue, differences existed between the patient group and controls. However, whole mouth sensations resulted in similar sensory ability as controls. Whereas patients demonstrated adequate masticatory and speech ability, differences existed between patients and controls. CONCLUSION: Although some sensory ability is preserved in patients who have had tongue reconstruction with an innervated RFFF, functional outcomes such as masticatory ability and speech intelligibility may be affected in some patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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