MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045942924 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000006997

Management of Congenital Auricular Anomalies

2020· article· en· W3045942924 on OpenAlexaff
Nadim Joukhadar, Daniel McKee, Louise Caouette‐Laberge, Michael Bezuhly

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicrotiaDeformitySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe normal ear anatomy and development, and evaluate the patient's ears for differences in shape, size, prominence, and symmetry. 2. Identify common congenital ear deformities, including prominent ear, macrotia, Stahl ear, cryptotia, constricted ear, and lobule anomalies. 3. Describe both early nonoperative management and operative techniques for correction of these ear deformities. 4. Be aware of advantages and disadvantages of common and emerging techniques for correction of pediatric ear deformities. SUMMARY: Whereas severe ear malformations such as microtia/anotia are rare, other ear deformities, such as prominent ear, Stahl ear, and cryptotia, are common. Although these ear deformities result in minimal physiologic morbidity, their psychological and cosmetic impact can be significant. Identifying these common deformities and understanding how they differ from normal ear anatomy is critical to their management. In cases where a deformity is identified in neonatal life, ear molding may obviate the need for surgery. Although various surgical techniques have been described for correction of common ear deformities, the surgeon should follow a careful stepwise approach to address the auricular deformity or deformities present. By using such an approach, complications may be minimized and predictable aesthetic outcomes achieved.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207