Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate if performing thyroidectomy through small incision has any notable aesthetic impact on patients compared with larger incision.Methods Thirty consecutive patients underwent thyroidectomy were enrolled from March 2008 to June 2008 in this prospective randomized pilot study.The incision length was 6 cm in the small incision group and 9 cm in the larger incision group.After 3 years follow-up,the scar aesthetics were evaluated by patients and surgeons using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale(POSAS),Vancouver Scar Scale(VSS),respectively.Digital photographs about scars were taken and assessed by non-research related viewers.Results There were 13 cases who received scar aesthetic assessment in both groups.The demographic characteristics of both groups were comparative.The overall patients’ satisfactions for the small incision group and the larger incision group were(2.5±1.9)scores and(2.2±1.5)scores,respectively(P=0.55).There were no significant differences in scar assessment scale score as for other scar assessment scales(including VSS score,PSAS score,and OSAS score)between the two groups.The evaluation of digital photographs about scars by non-research related viewers was no significant difference(P0.05).Conclusion Larger cervical scar in thyroidectomy does not decrease patients’ satisfaction with their scar results.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".