Reconstruction of Fingertip Defects With Great Toe Pulp Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various methods have been used to treat fingertip defects that are caused when distal parts are amputated. In this study, we used the pulp graft harvested from the lateral aspect of the great toe. Between September 2004 and August 2006, the great toe pulp graft were performed on 16 patients. The ages of patients ranged from 4 to 58 years. The average follow-up duration was 28 months. Complete graft take was observed in 13 of 16 patients. Partial necrosis was observed in 2 patients, and total necrosis in 1 patient. The pulp graft was painless and the color and texture of the graft were similar to the adjacent skin. Semmes-Weinstein monofilament and 2-point discrimination tests showed good recovery of fingertip sense. The scar of the fingertip was assessed by Vancouver Scar Scale and Cold intolerance by Visual Analog Scale and the results were satisfactory and also improved with time. The recipient site wasclosed with little scar. There were no gait disturbances. To conclude, the great toe pulp graft can provide soft-tissue and sensory recovery in fingertip defects.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".