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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".