Utility of fibrin sealants and the road ahead in plastic surgery: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:The objective of this scoping review is to examine the extent of literature on the utility and safety of various types of fibrin sealants in plastic surgery. Considerations such as consent, and cost profile will also be reviewed and identified as future research opportunities.Introduction:Since the approval of fibrin sealants in Europe in the 1970s, they have found their niche in various types of surgical operations, and their utility has led to a rise in popularity. However, the clinical applications of fibrin sealants are not fully synthesized, and important ethical and financial considerations are rarely discussed.Inclusion criteria:Studies reporting the application of commercially available fibrin sealants in plastic surgery procedures on humans of all age groups were included in this review. Additionally, published abstracts and all opinion pieces including commentaries and narrative reviews were exempt.Methods:The key information sources that will be searched are the following: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and LILACS and grey literature sources. There are no limits placed on the searches. Each publication will be screened by two authors, and any conflict in the selection decision will be resolved by a third author to limit bias.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".