MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199217470 · doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000002727

Balancing Training Opportunities and Patient Outcomes

2021· review· en· W3199217470 on OpenAlexaff
Maleeha Mughal, Aseel Sleiwah, William A. Townley

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Plastic Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHead and neckReferralPlastic surgerySurgeryGeneral surgeryFree flapFree flap reconstructionHead and neck surgeryOtorhinolaryngologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Microvascular free tissue transfer is the criterion standard of reconstruction post-oncological resections of the head and neck region. We present a consultant's first 200 consecutive microvascular head and neck reconstructions in independent practice. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of all head and neck reconstructions performed in the first 3 years of practice was performed. These included 200 consecutive microvascular head and neck reconstructions performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary referral center. We review the results and complications in this series and discuss factors significant for successful outcomes in head and neck reconstruction. We also highlight that different parts of the surgery in the majority of cases were performed by a trainee under the supervision of the senior surgeon and thus discuss the need for training future plastic surgeons with an interest in head and neck reconstruction.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Plastic SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207