MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210947759 · doi:10.1177/12034754221077903

Secondary Intention Healing Over Exposed Bone on the Scalp, Forehead, and Temple Following Mohs Micrographic Surgery

2022· article· en· W4210947759 on OpenAlexaff
Noelle Wong, David Zloty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForeheadScalpVascularitySurgeryGranulation tissueMohs surgeryComplicationWound healing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Removal of skin cancers on the scalp, forehead, and temple can result in surgical defects with exposed bone. In such cases, reconstruction becomes challenging due to limited vascularity for flap or graft repair. OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate the usefulness of secondary intention healing of scalp, forehead, and temple defects over exposed bone. METHODS/MATERIALS: A retrospective case series of 41 patients who had Mohs Micrographic Surgery with post-surgical scalp, forehead, or temple defects involving exposed bone. These patients then underwent secondary intention healing. RESULTS: 90% of patients successfully healed. Average time to complete granulation was 92 days, and average time to full re-epithelialization was 186 days. Visual analog scale assessment of final scar quality resulted in 57% being good, 35% being fair, and 8% being poor. No patient had infection or other serious complication. Mean follow-up duration was 272 days. CONCLUSION: This case series shows the viability of secondary intention healing of scalp wounds over exposed bone. Study power was not adequate to predict time to complete healing based on defect size, or allow association of patient factors with the risk of nonhealing. Managing patient expectations, and emphasizing the importance of early occlusive wound care is paramount for healing success.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207