MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pharyngocutaneous fistula

2003· review· en· W4239289263 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head & Neck Surgery · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryComplicationLaryngectomyFistulaPerioperativeHead and neckReconstructive surgeryGeneral surgeryLarynx

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of pharyngocutaneous fistula after oncologic head and neck surgery is a serious complication. It is the most common complication after major hypopharyngeal and laryngeal ablative surgery. The cause and management guidelines are still controversial. Contributing risk factors of impaired wound healing should be recognized in preoperative planning. Perioperative technical issues and preventive postoperative care play a major role in the prevention of fistulae, limiting the severity of the fistula and minimizing secondary complications. Surgical salvage of cancers treated with organ preservation approaches is associated with higher rates of postoperative complications, particularly in cases in which mucosal membranes are transgressed and surgically closed. Patients who require surgical repair are best treated by the use of regional myocutaneous flaps or free tissue transfers. This subset of patients is likely best treated in regional centers of excellence with well developed multidisciplinary programs for ablative and reconstructive head and neck surgery.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.292 · 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