MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596582948 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0000000000000523

Postburn Microstomia Prevention Using an Appliance Providing Simultaneous Horizontal and Vertical Adjustable Forces

2017· article· en· W2596582948 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory S. Antonarakis, Sandra Fastlicht, Taras Masnyi, Bryan Tompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTumors and Oncological Cases
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrostomiaMedicineSwallowingDentistryOrthodonticsPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microstomia, an abnormally small oral orifice, is a complication of perioral facial burns. In this case, contraction of the circumoral tissues and hypotonia of the musculature is responsible for this microstomia, which can produce aesthetic and functional impairment with eating, swallowing, communication (speech and facial expressions), compromised dental care and maintenance due to limited oral access, social interactions, and psychological well-being. Conservative management involves providing physical resistance to scar contracture, with opposing horizontal and vertical circumoral forces by means of appliances that aim to stretch the commissures and fibrotic muscles. Numerous appliances, either intraoral or extraoral, have been described to prevent or treat microstomia by delivering a static or dynamic stretch horizontally or vertically, with most designed to stretch the mouth horizontally. Finding a comfortable effective way to stretch the mouth vertically has proved to be a challenge. This article describes the fabrication of a dynamic commissural appliance, constructed using acrylic resin and expansion screws, which provide simultaneous horizontal and vertical circumoral forces. This appliance is constructed easily and inexpensively without the need for taking impressions, can be adjusted so that it is almost painlessly inserted, and is progressively activated. It is convenient for use because the patient controls the pressure that is applied by the appliance. Its use in a case is described where the appliance has improved mouth opening and consequently functional outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicTumors and Oncological CasesFrench-language works237,207