Factors associated with early and late digital revascularization and replantation failure: a retrospective cohort study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Factors associated with failure of digital revascularization and replantation procedures have been well characterized, but studies have not investigated failures occurring beyond the early postoperative period. A single-centre retrospective chart review included 284 patients (434 digits) who underwent digital revascularization or replantation. Patient-, injury- and surgery-related characteristics were compared among successful procedures, digits that failed while in hospital (early failure), and initially viable digits that failed after hospital discharge (late failure). Overall, 202 patients had successful procedures (71%). There were 51 early failures (18%) and 31 late failures (11%). Crush injuries and vein grafting were associated with early failure only. Complete amputations and leeching were strongly associated with both early and late failure. This study revealed that a substantial proportion of initially viable digits fail after discharge from hospital. Patients with signs of venous congestion may benefit from longer observation periods in hospital to avoid late failure. Level of evidence: IV
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it