Parotid duct injury secondary to shark bite injury: Repair with a Crawford stent
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
Introduction Here we present a unique case of repair of a parotid injury caused by a shark attack. The repair technique is of interest due to the novel use of a Crawford stent, typically reserved for lacrimal duct injuries. Case description Our patient is a 43-year-old man who suffered a shark bite injury to the face and head ten days prior to surgery. The patient presented with multiple lacerations and a sialocele. During the surgery, a sialendoscope and open incision were used to find the duct laceration. The surgeon decided to utilize a Crawford stent as the stiff metal probe would satisfactorily delineate the structure and anatomy of Stenson's duct. Discussion Often, diagnosis of parotid gland trauma is missed at the time of injury, leading to later complications. In this procedure, we used a Crawford stent as its intrinsic stiffness allows it to tunnel through the duct easily. Conclusion Clinicians should have a high level of suspicion for parotid duct injury in a patient presenting with injury to the face, particularly with laceration type injuries. Our patient had a unique injury that required a novel Crawford stent repair over traditional silicone catheters.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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