Evaluation of the donor site after the median forehead flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Forehead flaps are useful for facial reconstruction. Studies of these flaps have mostly focused on the results of the reconstruction. However, due to the scarring and changes on the forehead caused by the median forehead flap (MFF), surgeons may be reluctant to perform this flap. Research into the donor site is needed for practical purposes. METHODS: We examined 42 patients who underwent an MFF at Pusan National University Hospital from 1996 to 2016. Based on a retrospective chart review, we examined the occurrence of complications. We also evaluated scars on the forehead using the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and assessed changes in the eyebrow position of 22 patients. RESULTS: No complications occurred in the 42 patients. The mean VSS score of the 22 patients was 2.8±0.79. The ratio of the height of the eyebrow on each side to the distance between the medial canthi increased postoperatively, meaning that both the left and right brows were elevated slightly (P=0.026 and P=0.014). However, the symmetry between the left and right sides did not change (P=0.979). The ratio of the interbrow distance to the distance between the medial canthi decreased slightly, meaning that the interbrow distance narrowed mildly (P<0.001). Moreover, there were no noticeable changes in the brow position as seen in a photo overlay. CONCLUSIONS: There were no notable complications in the forehead. Forehead scarring was acceptable. No change in brow symmetry was observed via photographic measurements and a photo overlay. Therefore, we propose that the MFF is a useful choice for minimizing scarring or deformation of the donor site.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".