Maxillary reconstruction using the scapular tip free flap: A radiologic comparison of 3D morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".