MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320976058 · doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000000646

The Lumbar Artery Perforator Flap

2015· article· en· W2320976058 on OpenAlex
Mary Beth Bissell, David T. Greenspun, Josh Levine, William Rahal, Ammar Al-Dhamin, Ali Alkhawaji, Steven F. Morris

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

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbar arteriesAnatomyLumbarFasciaPerforator flapsCadaverSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The lumbar region is a potential donor site for perforator-based rotational or free flaps or as a recipient site for free flaps to obtain coverage for deficits in the sacral region. Because of the lack of consensus regarding the microvascular anatomy of this potential flap site, a robust investigation of the anatomy of this region is required. METHODS: Three-dimensional reconstructions (n = 6) of the microvasculature of the lumbar region were generated using MIMICS software (Materialise, Belgium) for each of the four paired lumbar vessels. Diameter, course, and pedicle length were recorded for all lumbar artery (LA) perforators. Statistical analysis was performed using SigmaStat 4.0 and graphs were generated using GraphPad Prism 6 Software. RESULTS: Perforators arising from the first pair of LAs are reliably detected along the inferior margin of the 12th rib, extending inferiorly and laterally from the midline while perforators arising from the fourth pair of LA perforate the fascia along a horizontal plane connecting the posterior iliac crests. There are significantly more cutaneous perforators arising from the first (L1) and fourth (L4) pairs of LA than from the second (L2) and third (L3) (mean ± SD: L1, 5.5 ± 1.2; L2, 1.4 ± 0.7; L3, 1.3 ± 0.7; L4, 4.8 ± 1.0; P < 0.05). The average perforator diameter arising from L1 is greater than those arising from L4 (diameter ± SD: L1, 1.2 mm ± 0.2 >L4, 0.8 mm ± 0.2; P < 0.0001). L1 and L4 perforators have longer pedicle lengths than those arising from L2 and L3 (length ± SD: L1, 98.2 mm ± 57.8; L4, 106.1 mm ± 23.3 >L2, 67.5 mm ± 27.4; L3, 78.5 mm ± 30.3; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Perforators arising from the first and fourth LAs arise in a predictable fashion, have adequate pedicle lengths, and are of suitable diameter to support a perforator flap. We present a case to support the potential use of this flap for microvascular breast reconstruction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.213 · 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