MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898825542 · doi:10.1177/2292550318800329

The Deep Circumflex Iliac Artery Perforator Flap for Breast Reconstruction

2018· article· en· W2898825542 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast reconstructionAxillary linesAnatomyAbdominal wallAbdomenSurgeryNuclear medicineBreast cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autologous breast reconstruction using abdominal-based perforator flaps produces excellent aesthetic results with minimal donor site morbidity. The superficial inferior epigastric artery and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps reliably perfuse a hemi-abdomen, up to the anterior axillary line. Beyond this line laterally, the flank or "love handle" tissue is primarily perfused by the deep circumflex iliac artery (DCIA) or secondarily by the superficial circumflex iliac artery. The flank tissue is a valuable addition to increase flap size when harvested with a DIEP flap or to provide vascularized tissue when the abdomen has been previously harvested. Harvesting the flank tissue in combination with the anterior abdominal tissue improves the contour of the trunk, accentuates the waist, and minimizes secondary revisions to excise prominent "dogears." The DCIA flap is a novel technique for breast reconstruction. In this article, we describe our technique, pearls and pitfalls, and early results.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
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