MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173906848

FCT 1-1 : Secondary intention healing after conservative surgery of nail unit melanoma in situ: An analysis of healing time and outcomes

2018· article· en· W3173906848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gwanghyun Jo, Soo Ick Cho

Bibliographic record

Venue프로그램북(구 초록집) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryDashPatient satisfactionReconstructive surgeryGranulation tissuePatient-reported outcomeBone healingQuality of life (healthcare)Wound healing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Secondary intention healing (SIH) after conservative surgery for nail unit melanoma in situ (NUMIS) can be a useful reconstructive method. However, the healing process and recovery time has not been sufficiently reported. Objectives: To investigate course after SIH with functional surgery for NUMIS Methods: We analyzed 10 patients with NUMIS treated by conservative surgery and SIH in our institution from January 2015 to June 2018. We evaluated healing time, functional outcome, cosmetic outcome, and patient’s subjective satisfaction and complication. Results: Median age was 51 (range: 28-69) years old. Seven patients were female. Seven patients had fingernail involvement. Granulation tissue coverage over phalangeal bone completed in 3.7±2.4 weeks (mean±SD). Re-epithelialization achieved in 10±2.7 weeks. Mean Quick-Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score was 9.4±6.2. Foot Function Index (FFI) score was 1.3±2.3. Mean Vancouver Burn Scar Assessment Scale (VBSAS) score was 4.5±1.4. Patient’s subjective global satisfaction was median 8 (range: 7-10). Conclusion: Our data suggest that SIH is a good reconstructive method after conservative surgery of NUMIS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue프로그램북(구 초록집)Same topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207