MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164036262 · doi:10.1002/hed.21016

Morbidity and functional outcomes following gastro‐omental free flap reconstruction of circumferential pharyngeal defects

2009· article· en· W2164036262 on OpenAlexaff
Rajan S. Patel, Antti Mäkitie, David P. Goldstein, Patrick Gullane, Dale H. Brown, Jonathan C. Irish, Ralph Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryRadiation therapyTracheoesophageal fistulaFistulaOsteoradionecrosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In patients with extensive soft tissue fibrosis requiring circumferential pharyngeal reconstruction following definitive radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, we take advantage of abundant omental progenitor factors in the tubed gastro-omental free flap. This study reviews our experience with this flap. METHODS: Review of 11 patients (median follow-up, 2.8 years) undergoing total pharyngolaryngectomy following organ preservation protocols for recurrent squamous cell carcinoma (n = 9) and stricture (n = 2). RESULTS: Operative morbidity and mortality rates were 54% and 9%, respectively. One patient died following carotid rupture. Complications included: chyle leak (18%), pharyngocutaneous fistula (9%), and late stricture (27%). Ten patients (91%) achieved oral diet, and all 7 patients (100%) considered suitable for tracheoesophageal speech rehabilitation achieved functional speech. Seven patients remain alive without disease at a median of 41 months following surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The gastro-omental flap provides a viable option in high-risk patients undergoing circumferential pharyngeal reconstruction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHead & NeckSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207