MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236745100 · doi:10.14740/jmc2028e

Wegener Granulomatosis: Case Report of Facial Prosthetic Rehabilitation

2014· article· en· W4236745100 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Simone Cristina Kawabata, P. T. H. Hotta, Reinaldo Brito e Dias, Beatriz Silva Câmara Mattos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNoseProsthesisRelapsing polychondritisSurgeryRehabilitationDermatologyDentistryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wegener granulomatosis (WG) is a systemic, autoimmune disease histologically characterized by granulomatous vasculitis that affects the upper and lower aerodigestive tracts and glomerulonephritis. The purpose of this study was to restore the esthetic aspect of a saddle nose modified by WG. The clinical case is on a prosthetic rehabilitation in a 53-year-old woman with a severe nose deformity resulting from WG. The sculpture was made in accordance with the requests expressed by the patient and within the limits of the working area. A medical silicone, Silastic MDX-4-4210, was used to make the prosthesis in order to ensure adequate fitting and esthetic appearance. The rehabilitation provided by the maxillofacial prosthesis raised the patient’s self-esteem and caused an improvement in life quality leading to the social reintegration. Dentists must be aware of oral signs such as strawberry gingivitis, which may arise early and is a pathognomonic sign of the disease. Maxillofacial prosthesis may be the only esthetic solution in cases of saddle nose due to in cases of WG. J Med Cases. 2014;5(12):646-649 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc2028e

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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical CasesSame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207