Decision Analysis Model for Facial Composite Tissue Allotransplantation
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
Facial composite tissue allotransplantation (CTA) has been proposed as a potential reconstructive option in severe facial disfigurement, in view of the reported success of hand allotransplantation. In the absence of clinical data, the decision to proceed with facial allotransplantation is dependent on the value or expected utility of the resultant status. Utility is measured by various means, including quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The QALY was developed as an attempt to integrate length of life in a particular health state and quality of life in that state into a single index measure. The change in utility value effected by an intervention multiplied by the duration of the treatment effect provides the number of QALYs gained. Utilities expressed as QALYs can then be fitted into a decision analytic model. Decision analysis enables surgeons to compare the expected consequences of pursuing different strategies (e.g., facial CTA vs. severe facial disfigurement). The purpose of this study was to assist surgeons with the decision of whether to proceed with CTA of the face.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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