Tongue reconstruction: Rebuilding mobile three‐dimensional structures from immobile two‐dimensional substrates, a fresh cadaver study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the two-dimensional (2D) characteristics of flaps necessary to create three-dimensional (3D) tongue anatomy. METHODS: Dissection of 11 fresh, nonpreserved human cadavers was performed. Six defects in each were created: total tongue, total oral tongue, hemiglossectomy, oral hemiglossectomy, total base of tongue, and hemi-base of tongue. The resections were debulked to create flat, 2D mucosal flaps. The dimensions and shapes of these flaps were determined. RESULTS: Each specimen showed consistent dimensions and geometry between cadavers. The total tongue was pear-shaped, the total oral tongue was egg-shaped, the oral hemi-tongue was bullet-shaped, the hemi-tongue resembled a dagger, the total base of tongue was rectangular, and the hemi-base of tongue was hour-glass shaped. CONCLUSION: Typical dimensions and shapes of common tongue defects were determined. It is conceivable that customizing reconstructive flaps based on these data will increase the accuracy of neo-tongue reconstruction, and thus, improve functional outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".