MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117540373 · doi:10.1055/s-0040-1721761

Secondary Reconstruction of the Zygomaticomaxillary Complex

2020· review· en· W3117540373 on OpenAlex

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

VenueSeminars in Plastic Surgery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnophthalmosMedicineOrthodonticsZygomatic boneZygomatic FracturesZygomatic archDisplacement (psychology)DentistrySurgeryDiplopia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zygomaticomaxillary (ZMC) fractures are the second most common facial fractures after nasal bone fractures. The zygoma, with its location and multiple points of articulations, lends itself to both facial structure and esthetics. Secondary ZMC deformities are complications of inadequate primary correction, delayed repair, or lack of repair. Secondary revisions of ZMC aim to correct ZMC displacement and projection and to address orbital discrepancies. Extensive correction involving significant orbital and malar defects requires zygomatic repositioning osteotomies and would greatly benefit from the utilization of virtual surgical planning, intraoperative navigation, and imaging. Minor corrections in malar projection can be corrected by onlay grafting and soft tissue augmentation and resuspension. Isolated or minor orbital corrections can be managed by autogenous or alloplastic material to restore lost orbital volume and anatomy.

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)0.001
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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.239 · 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