A study on survival effect of arterialized venous flap with intermittent positive pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effect of intermittent positive pressure to arterialized venous flap. Methods Arterialized venous flap was designed on the abdomen of the rabbit with continuous pressure 4 kPa for 1 min in an interval of 4 min, The survival areas and the outstretched rate of arterialized venous flap was measured between experimental and control groups, and fluorescence blood flowmeter was used to compare the blood supply of arterialized venous flap between experimental and control groups. Results (1)The survival areas of the experimental group were much larger than that of the control group.(2)The outstretched rate of the experimental group were much longer than that of the control group.(3)The numerical value of fluorescence blood flowmeter of the experimental group were much higher than that of the control group. Conclusions Intermittent positive pressure can improve the survival areas and the survival quality of arterialized venous flap evidently, as well as improve the blood supply of arterialized venous flap especially in postoperative forepart.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".