Nasal Septal Perforation Reconstruction with Polydioxanone Plate: A Systematic Review
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
Nasal septal perforation is an uncommon pathology that is difficult to surgically repair and may significantly impact patients' quality of life. Existing treatments have high complication and failure rates. The use of polydioxanone (PDS) plates to repair septal perforations is an innovative approach that has demonstrated superior outcomes to the conventional techniques. This study aimed to review the literature on PDS plates for nasal septal perforation reconstruction. PubMed, OVID Medline, and OVID Embase databases were searched for relevant articles in June 2021. Search terms included nasal septal perforation, polydioxanone, septal perforation, septal repair, nasal septum, and PDS plate. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were adhered to for this systematic review. Database searches yielded 80 articles. Seven articles were included representing 74 patients. All studies reported the use of PDS plates in addition to other materials. They all reported closure rates of at least 80%. The majority of studies reported no postoperative complications. Nasal septal perforation reconstruction with PDS plates is a promising approach that has demonstrated positive outcomes. Further larger studies are required to evaluate the long-term efficacy of using PDS plates on patients with septal perforations.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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