MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810635131 · doi:10.1002/micr.30349

Predictors of plate extrusion in oromandibular free flap reconstruction

2018· article· en· W2810635131 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrosurgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtrusionDemographicsSurgeryOsteotomyFree flapMultivariate analysisUnivariate analysisRetrospective cohort studyDentistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Plate extrusions after free tissue transfer for mandibular reconstruction can be problematic and generally require revision surgery. Our objective was to assess the predictors of plate extrusion and compare outcomes between fibular free flaps (FFF), lateral border scapular flaps (LBSF), and scapular tip free flaps (STFF). METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent osseous free tissue reconstruction of the mandible (2008-2014) at Victoria Hospital, London, Ontario. Patient demographics and treatment-related information were collected. RESULTS: We identified 134 procedures and 27 (20.2%) plate extrusions (21/61 FFF, 3/49 STFF, and 3/24 LBSF). Freedom from extrusion after 2 years was significantly associated with the use of FFF (P = .003, HR 6.09 1.82-20.44), performing 1 osteotomy (P = .03, HR 2.61 1.08-6.31), and anterior mandibular defects (P = .01, HR 2.66 1.25-5.66) in the univariate model. FFF's were employed more frequently in younger patients, with 2.4 mm plates, more anterior defects, and with a greater number of osteotomies (P < .001). However, after controlling for these variables in multivariate analyses the use of a FFF was the only significant predictor of extrusion at 2 years (P = .006, HR 3.68 1.46-9.28). CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, use of the STFF predicts mandibular defects that are less prone to developing plate extrusion and FFF tended to be used more frequently in anterior defects with osteotomies. However, after controlling for these factors use of the FFF appeared to have higher rates of extrusion than scapular flaps. Further prospective studies controlling for defect variables are needed to elucidate the risk factors for plate extrusion.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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