MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238622831 · doi:10.21608/ejprs.2021.201657

Functional and Aesthetic Outcome of Reconstructive Surgery for Contracted Neck Scars

2021· article· en· W4238622831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed Abulftooh, Mohammed Fadey, Mohamed Mansour, Mohamed Abdelhalim, mohamed younis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Egyptian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScarsMedicineSurgeryReconstructive surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Contracted scars of the neck involving theanterior cervical zone constitute a unique group of challengescompared with post-burn complications in other parts of thebody. Many techniques have been advocated for reconstructingneck contractures.Purpose: To determine and recommend the ideal skincover for neck contracture release defects with regard to bothfunctional and cosmetic outcomes.Methods: A prospective and retrospective cohort studyincluded 20 patients with various degrees of contracted scarsof the neck. After releasing contracture band and resection ofthe unfavorable scarred tissue, remaining defects were surgicallyreconstructed using multiple Z-Plasties, STSGs, FTSGsand supraclavicular artery island flap with or without priorusage of a tissue expander.Results: Excision and flap group have a higher significantfunctional outcome than excision with graft and Multiple ZPlastygroups (p=0.031). Also, excision and flap have a lowernon-significant Vancouver scar scale than other reconstructionmethods without significant differences between groups.Excision and flap group have higher Patient Satisfaction scorethan Excision and graft and Multiple Z-Plasty groups withoutsignificant differences between groups.Conclusion: Local and regional flaps especially the supraclavicularartery island flap provide a predictable reconstructionoption not only with better color and texture match butalso achieves a superior functional outcome.Approval from the Research Ethics Committee in BenhaFaculty of Medicine was granted and a fully informed writtenconsents were taken from all patients regarding surgicalprocedure, photographing, possible complications and followup < br />period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Egyptian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgerySame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207