MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335275069 · doi:10.1097/sap.0b013e31828d9983

Safety of Salvaging Impending Flap Congestion in Breast Reconstruction by Venous Supercharging of the Cephalic Vein

2013· article· en· W2335275069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luis Landín, Pedro Bolado, C. Casado Sánchez, Jorge Bonastre, M. Garcia-Redondo, Shirin Zharbakhsh, Jesús Díez‐Manglano, Francisco Leyva, César Casado-Pérez

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLymphedemaCephalic veinVenous congestionSurgeryBreast reconstructionVeinScarsBreast cancerCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autologous flap breast reconstruction is an established technique that carries a risk of vascular failure. We evaluated the safety of salvaging impending venous congestion by using the cephalic vein for supercharging autologous abdominal flaps. Our main outcome measures were flap survival, triggering or impairing lymphedema as measured by the physician or reported by the patient, and scar severity as measured by the Vancouver scar scale. We were able to save 100% of the flaps, but could not find any statistical association with or without increased lymphedema before and after the procedure. One patient reported that lymphedema worsened. The patients accepted the scars (mean Vancouver scar scale score, 5.7). In sum, using the cephalic vein to improve venous drainage of autologous breast reconstruction was safe and did not trigger or impair lymphedema, but scarring in the upper arm was unavoidable.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207