Angularis oris axial pattern flap as a reliable and versatile option for rostral facial reconstruction in cats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes associated with the use of an angularis oris axial pattern flap (AOAPF) for rostral facial reconstruction in cats. ANIMALS: Nine adult client-owned cats. STUDY DESIGN: Short case series. METHODS: Ten AOAPF were performed in nine cats after resection of a tumor. Wounds were located at the nose, infraorbital, supraorbital, frontal, eye, and ear canal region. Orbital exenteration (n = 3), pinnectomy (n = 2), nasal planum resection, total ear canal ablation (n = 2), and partial eyelid reconstruction (n = 3) were performed. RESULTS: Short-term postoperative complications included flap edema (n = 10), suture dehiscence (n = 3), and distal tip necrosis (n = 3). All wounds resulting from minor complications healed by second intention in 5-15 days. Long-term complications included epiphora (n = 2), frequent grooming around the eyes (n = 2), and enucleation due to corneal ulcer secondary to impaired postoperative eyelid function (n = 1). Tumor recurrence occurred in 3 cases. CONCLUSION: The AOAPF was a versatile and reliable option for rostral facial reconstruction in cats with acceptable long-term outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".