Radial forearm versus anterolateral thigh free flaps for laryngopharyngectomy defects: prospective, randomized trial.
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 investigate the use of anterolateral thigh flaps versus radial forearm free flaps for the reconstruction of laryngopharyngectomy defects in a prospective, randomized study. METHODS: Nineteen patients who were to undergo laryngopharyngectomy were randomized into either anterolateral thigh or radial forearm groups. The primary outcome measure was complication rate (eg, flap failure, fistula formation, pharyngeal stenosis). Secondary outcome measures included donor-site morbidity (limb function, cosmesis, pain). RESULTS: There was a significant (p = .04) increase in reconstructive complications in the anterolateral thigh group, including esophageal stenosis and pharyngeal fistulae. There was no significant difference in donor-site complications. CONCLUSION: There is an increased free flap complication rate without decreased flap donor-site morbidity when using the anterolateral thigh flap to reconstruct laryngopharyngectomy defects. As such, we recommend the radial forearm free flap as the preferred flap for reconstruction of laryngopharyngectomy defects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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