MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165550058 · doi:10.1002/hed.21946

Maxillary reconstruction using the scapular tip free flap: A radiologic comparison of 3D morphology

2012· article· en· W2165550058 on OpenAlex
Nitin A. Pagedar, Ralph Gilbert, Harley Chan, Michael J. Daly, Jonathan C. Irish, Jeffrey H. Siewerdsen

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

VenueHead & Neck · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsScapulaMedicineOrthodonticsHard palateAnatomySimilarity (geometry)DentistryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Scapular tip osteomyogenous free flaps have been described for complex palate reconstruction. Minimal osteotomies are needed because of the similar shapes of the scapula and palate. We compared the bony morphology of the palate and scapular tip to determine the suitability of the scapular tip for palate reconstruction. METHODS: We analyzed facial and chest CT images of 10 patients, comparing the morphology of 3 simulated palate resection specimens (total palate, subtotal palate, and hemipalate) with corresponding simulated scapular tip bone flaps from the same patient. RESULTS: Conformance distances between palates and simulated flaps were small, indicating close shape similarity. Median conformance distances were 3.44 mm for hemipalatectomy, 3.56 mm for subtotal palatectomy, and 3.71 mm for total palatectomy. Six outlier observations accrued from 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analysis, there is close similarity between the shapes of the palate and the scapular tip. This similarity supports use of the scapular tip flap for selected palate defects.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.332
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