MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314827681 · doi:10.1097/moo.0b013e328347f87a

The temporoparietal fascia flap

2011· review· en· W2314827681 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Jaquet, Kevin Higgins, Danny Enepekides

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck Surgery · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neckFacial reconstructionCartilageFasciaSurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The article reviews recent significant advances and current applications of the temporoparietal fascia flap (TPFF) in head and neck surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: The recent literature describes a wide span of new applications of the TPFF in many areas. Significant developments and refinements in the reconstruction of orbitomaxillary composite defects and orbital exenteration cavities are reported. The TPFF combined with alloplastic framework is gaining in importance in external ear reconstruction. Innovative prefabricated skin or soft-tissue grafts based on the TPFF are used to restore facial contour or in the reconstruction of complex facial defects. The free TPFF finds a role in laryngotracheal reconstruction as a vascular carrier to support cartilage grafts. SUMMARY: Owing to its reliability and unequalled structural properties, the TPFF still plays a central role in facial reconstruction. Future investigation will likely incorporate the free TPFF as a vascular carrier of bioengineered tissues, such as cartilage and mucosa, for various head and neck indications.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations57
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck SurgerySame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207