MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618704116 · doi:10.1055/s-2006-958664

IMAP Flap—A New Option for Head and Neck Reconstruction

2007· article· en· W2618704116 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Veselý, Dylan J. Murray, Peter C. Neligan, Christine B. Novak, Patrick Gullane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMammary arteryDissection (medical)Head and neckAnatomySurgeryCostal cartilageResectionPerforator flapsArteryCartilage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presented the authors' experience with the internal mammary artery perforator (IMAP) flap. It has evolved as a progression from the deltopectoral flap and other similar flaps previously described. It is based on the perforators of the internal mammary artery and combines our current understanding of cutaneous arterial anatomy and physiology with the classic deltopectoral flap. Careful dissection of the perforator and mobilization of the internal mammary vessels by costal cartilage resection allow rotation of the flap to cover defects in the neck and clavicular area. Dissection and perfusion studies were performed in 5 fresh cadavers to detail the anatomy and to establish the safe limits of the IMAP flap. The dominant perforator is inconstant and varies from side to side and between patients. The area reliably perfused by any one perforator is large and extends from the clavicle to the xiphisternum, and the anterior axillary line to the mid-line. Greatest flap length can be obtained by orienting the flap obliquely across the chest. Clinical cases were discussed individually. To date, these have included oblique flaps for neck resurfacing, and vertical flaps for pharyngeal reconstruction and parastomal repair. The IMAP flap provides good quality local tissue which can be made sensate. It will safely reach to the jaw line and is suitable for a variety of reconstructive uses. In selected patients, it offers an excellent alternative to either the deltopectoral or pectoralis major flaps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reconstructive MicrosurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207