Donor-site morbidity following radial forearm free tissue transfer in head and neck surgery.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate long-term quantitative and qualitative donor-site morbidity following radial forearm free tissue harvest. DESIGN: A single-centre retrospective cohort study with internal controls was undertaken. METHODS: Quantitative measurements of range of motion (ROM) of the forearm, wrist, and digits were performed. Grip and pinch strength and hand dexterity were also evaluated. Qualitative assessment was performed using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), a validated quality of life instrument. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quantitative primary outcome measures were (1) wrist flexion and extension, (2 forearm pronation and supination, and (3) hand dexterity. The qualitative primary outcome measure was overall MHQ score. RESULTS: The operated side demonstrated decreased hand dexterity (p = .008), with no change in wrist and forearm ROM. An increase in ROM of the little finger was found (p = .002). The MHQ demonstrated a perceived decrease in function (p = .031), an increase in pain (p = .045), and no difference in appearance (p = .486). CONCLUSIONS: The radial forearm free flap results in measurable quantitative changes in hand function and limited changes in patient perception. Donor-site appearance does not seem to be an important factor.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it