MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159275154

Auricular reconstruction for microtia: A review of available methods.

2014· review· en· W2159275154 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationSt Joseph's Health CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicrotiaBreast reconstructionCostal cartilageSurgeryImplantHumanitiesCartilageAnatomyArtBreast cancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several surgical techniques have been described for auricular reconstruction. Autologous reconstruction using costal cartilage is the most widely accepted technique of microtia repair. However, other techniques have certain indications and should be discussed with patients and families when planning for an auricular reconstruction. In the present review, the authors discuss the main surgical techniques for auricular reconstruction including autologous costal cartilage graft, Medpor (Stryker, USA) implant and prosthetic reconstruction. To further elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of each technique, the authors invited leaders in this field, Dr Nagata, Dr Park, Dr Reinisch and Dr Wilkes, to comment on their own technique and provide examples of their methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.273 · 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