MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333968243 · doi:10.1055/s-0033-1343953

Union and Bone Resorption of Free Fibular Flaps in Mandibular Reconstruction

2013· article· en· W2333968243 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNonunionFibulaReduction (mathematics)ResorptionBone resorptionMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Free flapBony unionSurgeryDentistryProsthesisTibia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate bony union and resorption after free fibular flap reconstruction for mandibular reconstruction. METHODS: A total of 112 patients with composite resection and reconstruction with a fibular free flap were included. Computed tomography scan images taken after the reconstruction and approximately 1 year postoperatively were assessed to evaluate union (n = 60) and bone resorption (n = 24) of the neomandible. RESULTS: Most of the fibulas healed well (n = 34) and there was radiologic nonunion in 20% of the neomandibles at the time of evaluation (mean = 15 months). There was a statistically significant reduction in bone height in the native mandible (p = 0.02) and the anterior part of the fibular graft (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant reduction in mandibular and fibular graft height. However, the bone resorption was clinically minimal. Sufficient maintenance of height and good bony union support the use of free fibular flap in mandibular 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.899

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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