MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083961837 · doi:10.4103/jcas.jcas_73_19

Importance of choke vessels in injectable fillers

2020· review· en· W3083961837 on OpenAlexaff
Venkataram Mysore, Hina Jajoria, Aniketh Venkataram

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChokeBlindnessVascular occlusionFiller (materials)OcclusionSurgeryOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of facial anatomy is indispensable for dermatologists and plastic surgeons practicing aesthetic medicine, especially for those using fillers, as injection of fillers may be associated with serious complications such as vascular occlusion and blindness. Angiosome and choke vessels play an important role in vascular incidents occurring after filler injections. The objective of this article was to outline the anatomy and pathophysiology of choke vessels, a concept which is not well known to dermatologists.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic SurgerySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207