The pericranial flap for inner lining of full-thickness nasal defects: 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
BACKGROUND: Effective nasal reconstruction requires skin and soft tissue cover, cartilage or bone structure, and mucosal lining. Ideal lining is thin, pliable and vascularised, making reconstruction challenging. This paper presents the first case series with long-term outcomes of pericranial flaps used as inner lining for nasal reconstruction. METHODS: Patients undergoing paramedial forehead flaps from 2007 to 2019 were identified using second-stage nasal reconstruction billing codes. Patients with pericranial flaps for lining, for whom there were data on resulting outcomes and complications, were identified. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients underwent second-stage nasal reconstruction. Eighteen patients had paramedian forehead and pericranial flaps for inner lining reconstruction. The flap lining had no immediate post-operative complications. Three patients suffered partial to major reconstructive failure post radiotherapy. Other complications included nasal stenosis and orocutaneous fistula. CONCLUSION: Combined with paramedian forehead flaps, the pericranial flap is reliable as inner lining for nasal reconstruction. It is easily accessible and useful in resections with limited mucosal options.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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