Detailed analysis of graft techniques for nasal reconstruction following Wegener granulomatosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Saddle nose deformity secondary to Wegener granulomatosis (WG) presents a significant challenge for the reconstructive surgeon. Various grafting options have been proposed, but achieving good outcomes can be difficult. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 10 patients with WG who underwent reconstruction of saddle nose deformities by the senior author (A.G.) between 2005 and 2009. All patients were reconstructed using costal cartilage grafts. RESULTS: Primary surgery was functionally and cosmetically successful in 8 of 10 patients. Two patients experienced complications (graft resorption and columellar necrosis) requiring revision surgery; subsequently, they achieved good outcomes, with no further complications. There were no complications at the costal cartilage donor site. At the conclusion of the study, all patients were satisfied with their reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS: With a multidisciplinary team approach to pre- and postoperative patient management and careful surgical technique, reliable and excellent functional and cosmetic outcomes can be achieved with costal cartilage grafts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".