MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181205265 · doi:10.14639/0392-100x-n1161

Applications of intraoperative angiography in head and neck reconstruction

2021· article· en· W3181205265 on OpenAlexaff
Axel Sahovaler, Tommaso Gualtieri, Jong Wook Lee, Antoine Eskander, Konrado Massing Deutsch, Sabrina Q. Rashid, Mario Orsini, Alberto Deganello, J Davies, Danny Enepekides, Kevin Higgins

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Otorhinolaryngologica Italica · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryHead and neckIndocyanine greenAngiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Laser-assisted angiography with indocyanine green (LAIG) allows objective intraoperative evaluation of tissue vascularity. We endeavored to describe our experience with this technique in the head and neck region. METHODS: A retrospective review from February 2016 till October 2018 was conducted. We included patients who underwent head and neck procedures in which LAIG was employed. The main outcome was postoperative wound complications. We analysed the influence of LAIG results in intraoperative decision-making process. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included, and follow-up was for at least 6 months. LAIG was employed in 11 local flaps, 9 free flaps and 6 cases of pharyngeal closure during total laryngectomies. Wound complications occurred in two cases with distal tip flap necrosis. LAIG findings resulted in changes in decision making intraoperatively in 84% of procedures, which consisted in trimming poorly perfused tissues. There were no pharyngocutaneous fistulas. CONCLUSIONS: This represents a descriptive report on the use of LAIG on diverse head and neck reconstruction cases, with important impact on the decision-making process. A low number of postoperative wound complications were observed.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Otorhinolaryngologica ItalicaSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207