MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972738254 · doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000002091

A Simple Approach for the Repair of Intermediate-to-Large Cheek Defects

2019· article· en· W2972738254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Congzhen Qiao, Yun Zou, Yajing Qiu, Xiaoxi Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCheekSurgeryHematomaVisual analogue scaleDeformityComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of cheek congenital melanocytic nevus (CMN) remains a huge challenge because of undesirable defects in repair. The use of direct closure is often limited to defect reconstruction with a diameter less than 4 cm. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct vertical closure combined with extensive subcutaneous tissue undermining boundaries for intermediate-to-large cheek defects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate patients with cheek CMN who underwent the aforementioned procedure. Projected adult size, defect size, and incision length were measured. The Vancouver scar scale and visual analog scale were applied to assess scar formation and postoperative appearance. Complications within 1 year postoperatively were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients with CMN >3.5 cm underwent the procedure. Patients' age ranged from 3 to 36 years. The average projected adult size of the facial CMN was 5.5 ± 1.6 cm. The mean Vancouver scar scale and visual analog scale scores were 2.6 ± 1.0 and 8.0 ± 0.7, respectively. There were 2 cases of dog ear deformity (5.7%) and 1 case of hematoma (2.9%). CONCLUSION: This simple algorithm yields satisfying results with low complication rate in the repair of intermediate-to-large cheek defects and may become a useful alternative to cheek reconstruction.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207