MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974110924 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2019-231197

Use of negative-pressure wound therapy and split-thickness skin autograft to cover an exposed renal transplant

2019· article· en· W2974110924 on OpenAlex
Victoria McKinnon, Jouseph Barkho, Mark McRae

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

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfectious Aortic and Vascular Conditions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegative-pressure wound therapyMedicineSurgeryRenal transplantSplit thickness skin graftAbdominal wallTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure of a renal transplant through the abdominal wall is a rare event. A search of the literature reveals only six documented cases which used skin autograft for coverage, with none reported since 1981, and none which used negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) to prepare the recipient bed. This case report demonstrates that NPWT followed by split thickness skin graft is a reconstructive option which is feasible in patients who are at high risk for surgical complications in prolonged flap surgery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.264 · 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