MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911429349 · doi:10.1177/2050313x18823438

Preservation of lower extremity spare parts using the University of Wisconsin solution

2019· article· en· W2911429349 on OpenAlexaff
Nayif Alnaif, James Lee, Alain J. Azzi, Salah Aldekhayel, Teanoosh Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFillet (mechanics)Posterior tibial arterySurgerySpare partAmputationMicrosurgerySoft tissueAnterior tibial arteryArteryOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of a mangled limb is a challenging endeavor. With the advancement in microsurgery, spare parts surgery (fillet flaps) has gained recent interest. In the context of lower extremity amputation secondary to trauma, viable spare parts can provide stump soft tissue coverage, potentially preserving critical length and obviating above-knee amputations. Commonly, spare parts surgery is performed in the acute setting but tissue preservation is sometimes necessary. The authors report their experience preserving a fillet flap of a mangled lower extremity for 48 h using the University of Wisconsin solution. A sole fillet flap and a split-thickness skin graft were harvested and preserved from the amputated lower extremity (based on the posterior tibial artery and vein). Stump coverage was achieved by anastomosing the fillet flap to the proximal posterior tibial artery and vein. This solution has not been previously described for preservation of fillet 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAGE Open Medical Case ReportsSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207