[Evaluation of continuous curvilinear buccal-cervical incision in combined radical resection of buccal cancer].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical effect of continuous curvilinear buccal-cervical incision in combined radical resection of buccal cancer. METHODS: From January 2015 to December 2018, a total of 87 patients with buccal cancer were collected, of whom 42 underwent continuous curvilinear buccal-cervical incision (experimental group) and 45 underwent conventional cervical T shaped incision combined with a buccal incision (control group). Exposure of surgical filed in two groups was evaluated. The length of incision, duration of radical resection, and the incidence of postoperative complications were compared between two groups. The patients were followed-up for 7-43 months. Modified vancouver scar scale (VSS) and University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) were used to evaluate the postoperative scar and quality of life in both groups. Statistical analysis was performed on the data using SPSS 22.0 software package. RESULTS: The length of the incision in the experimental group was (36.40±5.08) cm, which was shorter than that of the control group (39.93±5.22) cm. Duration of combined radical resection in the experimental group was shorter than that of the control group. The incidence of neck complications in the experimental group was lower than that of the control group. The postoperative scar assessment and quality of life of the experimental group were better than that of the control group. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the exposure of the surgical field, postoperative recurrence and metastasis rate. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous curvilinear buccal-cervical incision has good exposure of the surgical field and shorter duration of radical resection, which ensures en bloc resection of tumor and cervical lymph nodes. It limits the formation of skin cicatrix, reduces the occurrence of postoperative complications and results in a good aesthetic and functional effect, therefore it is a recommended incision for clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".