Primary Orbital Fracture Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a technique for objective quantitative evaluation of outcomes of orbital reconstruction. Facial three-dimensional images were captured using a Vectra three-dimensional camera. Morphometric analysis was based on interactive anthropometric identification. The analysis was applied to a population of healthy adults (n = 13) and a population of patients following primary repair of unilateral orbital fractures (n = 13). Morphologic results following reconstruction were evaluated by identifying residual asymmetries. All subjects further completed the Derriford Appearance Questionnaire and the Orbital Appearance and Function Questionnaire.Normative reference values for periorbital asymmetry were determined in a reference population. The mean asymmetry was less than 1.6 mm for each measured morphologic feature. In the trauma population, primary orbital reconstruction effectively restored normal periorbital symmetry in 16 of 20 measured parameters. The fracture population showed no significant differences in the degree of asymmetry in globe projection, lower eyelid position, or ciliary margin length.The overall DAS59 scores were significantly higher in the fracture population (P = 0.04). This was due to significantly higher physical distress and dysfunction scores (P = 0.02), as well as a trend toward higher general and social self-consciousness scores (P = 0.06). No significant difference in facial self-consciousness was noted (P = 0.21). Thus, although primary orbital reconstruction was effective in restoring periorbital morphology, patients still experienced a higher level of physical distress and dysfunction than their nontraumatized counterparts. This was in accordance with patient self-report, which indicated that a greater percentage of patients were significantly bothered by functional outcomes postoperatively as opposed to appearance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".