MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561739437 · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000003351

Bilateral Malar Reconstruction Using Patient-Specific Polyether Ether Ketone Implants in Treacher–Collins Syndrome Patients With Absent Zygomas

2016· article· en· W2561739437 on OpenAlexaff
David Sainsbury, Alan M. George, Christopher R. Forrest, John H. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPhilips (Canada)Hospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTreacher Collins syndromeKetoneEtherOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors performed bilateral malar reconstruction using polyether ether ketone implants in 3 patients with Treacher-Collins syndrome with absent, as opposed to hypoplastic, zygomata. These patient-specific implants were fabricated using computed-aided design software reformatted from three-dimensional bony preoperative computed tomography images. The first time the authors performed this procedure the implant compressed the globe resulting in temporary anisocoria that was quickly recognized intraoperatively. The implant was immediately removed and the patient made a full-recovery with no ocular disturbance. The computer-aided design and manufacturing process was adjusted to include periorbital soft-tissue boundaries to aid in contouring the new implants. The same patient, and 2 further patients, subsequently underwent malar reconstruction using this soft tissue periorbital boundary fabrication process with an additional 2 mm relief removed from the implant's orbital surface. These subsequent procedures were performed without complication and with pleasing aesthetic results. The authors describe their experience and the salutary lessons learnt.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207