MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336148861 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0000000000000333

Free Transfer of a Paralyzed Contralateral Little Finger for Total Thumb Reconstruction in an Electrical Burn Patient

2016· review· en· W2336148861 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Philippe Giot, Laurence S. Paek, Geneviève Mercier-Couture, Joseph Bou‐Merhi, Patrick G. Harris, Michel Alain Danino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHumanitiesArtArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors report the case of a 30-year-old male with 52% TBSA high-voltage electrical injury of the upper half of the body. Injuries included a cervical burn with associated alteration of the left brachial plexus as well as extensive soft tissue burn of the right hand. Three months later, he developed osteomyelitis of the right thumb metacarpal bone requiring amputation proximal to the metacarpophalangeal joint. Following initial management, the patient had a permanent distal left upper extremity paralysis with nonfunctional but relatively undamaged ipsilateral hand digits. The right hand remained functional with four intact digits and a thumb stump. Usually, late reconstruction of proximal thumb amputation is performed by pollicization or free toe transfer procedures. In this particular case, right thumb reconstruction was done by free transfer of the left little finger. Four months postoperatively, the patient demonstrated a functional pinch between the reconstructed thumb and the ipsilateral digits along with improving sensation. This uncommon surgical procedure restored a functional thumb with minimal donor site morbidity. The decision-making process and operative technique are presented in detail along with a review of the thumb reconstruction literature.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207