Vascularized Nasoseptal Flap for Medial Orbital Wall Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the use and efficacy of the vascularized nasoseptal flap, its indications are also expanding. Due to its relative ease of harvesting and no significant impairment in the long-term sinonasal quality of life, the flap has been used for a number of other purposes apart from its originally proposed use in reconstruction of the anterior cranial fossa, sella, and the clivus. Its use may negate the need of another incision to obtain fat or fascia. The authors describe the case of a 47-year-old lady who underwent endoscopic excision of a medially placed orbital intraconal hemangioma who presented to us with very poor vision in the left eye. The large medial orbital defect was reconstructed with a vascularized pedicled nasoseptal flap from the ipsilateral side. The patient made an excellent visual and sino-nasal recovery. This patient highlights a unique use for the proliferating indications for the use of the nasoseptal flap.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".