MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902126391 · doi:10.1177/014556131809700712

Late Free Flap Failure in Head and Neck Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2902126391 on OpenAlexaff
David Forner, Blair Williams, Fawaz Makki, Jonathan Trites, S. Mark Taylor, Robert D. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueEar Nose & Throat Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryHead and neckFree flapFree flap reconstruction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our objectives were to review all reported cases of late flap failure in head and neck surgery and describe any relevant patterns. We conducted a systematic review of all published cases of free flap failure after postoperative day 7 in head and neck surgery from January 1990 to January 2018. Data were collected with respect to flap type, site of reconstruction, reason for failure, and time to failure. A total of 45 cases of late free flap failure in the head and neck were identified. Among the 34 cases in which the necessary data were available for analysis, 50% of late failures occurred between postoperative day 7 and 14. Common reasons for failure were abscess and vascular compromise. We conclude that most late flap failures occur in the second postoperative week. In patients with risk factors for flap failure, close monitoring for up to 14 days after surgery could detect flap compromise before the flap is lost.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar Nose & Throat JournalSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207