MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285932372 · doi:10.1002/micr.30027

Negative pressure wound therapy for the management of flaps with venous congestion

2016· article· en· W2285932372 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

VenueMicrosurgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVenous congestionNegative-pressure wound therapySurgeryDebridement (dental)MicrosurgeryEtiologyFree flap

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to evaluate the utility of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for rescuing flaps with venous congestion not attributable to a mechanical etiology and that cannot be surgically salvaged. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 12 patients suffered from partial or total flap congestion after pedicle or free-flap reconstruction was included. All patients underwent NPWT between 3 and 10 days postoperatively. RESULTS: All congested flaps survived after the application of NPWT. Nine patients suffered partial flap loss and this was addressed through debridement of the devitalized tissue and primary closure. Three patients required blood transfusions during the course of their management. All patients presented complete coverage of the defects without further problems in the flaps after the treatment. CONCLUSION: NPWT may be considered an alternative management strategy for flaps, which has undergone venous congestion not due to a mechanical cause. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 36:467-473, 2016.

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 score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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