Subciliary and Subtarsal Incision in Management of Zygomatico-Orbital Fracture, A Study on Scar Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate outcome between the subciliary and subtarsal incision in management of zygomatico-orbital fracture in terms of postoperative scar assessment. Subject and Methods: A total 36 patients of either gender, age 21 to 40 years having isolated zygomatico-orbital fracture were selected by consecutive sampling (16 patients in Subciliary and 16 in Sub-tarsal group). Zygomatico-orbital fracture was confirmed by 3D CT scan and Occipitomental view of face. After surgery postoperative scar assessment (Pigmentation, Pliability, Vascularity and height) was performed using Vancouver scar scale. Results: Male participants accounted for 27 (84.4%) of the 32 zygomaticomaxillary complex fractured patients, followed by 5 female patients (15.6% ). With 17 (53.1%) patients, the age group 21-25 years was the most afflicted, followed by 26-30 years with 15 (46.9%) patients and a mean age of 25.59 ± 3.004 years. In all three postoperative weeks, the subtarsal group performed considerably better than the subciliary group in terms of postoperative scar evaluation. Conclusion: Scar formation was higher in subciliary group as compared to subtarsal group Keywords: Subtarsal, Subciliary, Zygomatico-orbital, Fracture,Scar, Assessment
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".