Maxillectomy defects: Virtually comparing fibular and scapular free flap reconstructions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study virtually compares patient-specific fibular and scapular reconstructions for maxillectomies. METHODS: Nine maxillectomy defects were created on 10 maxillas and virtually reconstructed with patient-specific fibulas and scapulas. Reconstructions were compared for restoring midface cephalometrics, dental implantability, and pedicle length. RESULTS: Of 90 maxillectomy defects, the vertically oriented scapula provided improved orbital floor and maxillary height reconstructions (p < 0.001), albeit at the cost of dental implantability compared to the fibula (p < 0.001). In two defects crossing the midline, the fibula, allowing for more osteotomies, provided improved maxillary projection. In the remaining three defects crossing the midline, the horizontally oriented scapula was comparable to the fibula. Fibular and scapular reconstructions were amenable for dental implantation and had similar pedicle lengths, although favoring scapula in extensive defects. CONCLUSION: Fibular and scapular reconstructions of maxillectomy defects provide unique strengths. This virtual analysis can guide a goal-oriented reconstruction based on defect type and patient-specific goals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".