Postauricular Skin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postauricular skin is one of the potential donor sites for split-thickness skin grafts (STSGs). OBJECTIVE: To objectively quantify how postauricular donor sites heal after STSG harvesting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 39 Mohs micrographic surgery patients repaired with STSGs (total 41 surgical defects) was established. Scars resulting from postauricular donor site harvesting were objectively quantified by applying the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), in which healing of scars is ranked from 0 (best possible outcome) to 13 (worst possible outcome). RESULTS: Vancouver Scar Scale scores were 1.87 for sites followed for ≥6 months (n = 16), 3 for sites followed for 3 to 6 months (n = 7), and 1.61 for sites followed for 6 to 11 weeks (n = 18). Four patients developed mild hypertrophic scarring that resolved spontaneously or with intralesional triamcinolone injections at a concentration of 10 mg/mL. CONCLUSION: The postauricular skin is an excellent donor site for small-to-moderate sized STSGs (<10 cm). The donor sites healed well, as noted by the low scores on the VSS consistent with mild changes in erythema, pigmentation, and texture. The incidence of hypertrophic scarring was low and resolved with observation or treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.005 |
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".