P146 : Facial reconstruction with island pedicle flap after mohs micrographic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is currently an increasing attention in the field of dermatology for surgical therapy for removal and reconstruction of skin cancers. Island pedicle flap has been considered a method in reconstructive surgery due to simplicity of flap design and reliability after Mohs micrographic surgery(MMS). Especially, it is suitable for reconstruction of upper lip, cheek, lateral side wall of nose, and shows superior advantages of color and texture over various transposition flap and skin graft. Objectives: Our purpose is to report our experience with island pedicle flap in reconstruction of surgical defects of the face after MMS, using postoperative clinical and cosmetic results. Methods: From April 2011 to April 2013, 11 patients were diagnosed non-malignant melanoma skin cancer on the face and were treated with MMS. The surgical defects were reconstructed with island pedicle flap. We reviewed the medical records and evaluated clinical aspects and surgical treatment outcomes, and cosmetic results were scored as the Vancouver Scar Scale(VSS). Results: Cosmetic results of reconstructions were satisfactory, and 10 cases of 11 cases (90.9%) showed good to excellent results after 6months. Conclusion: We found island pedicle flap was simple to reconstruct defects and provided aesthetically good results. Therefore, this flap could be excellent choice for facial reconstruction after MMS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".