Surgical Outcomes Following Mohs Micrographic Surgery for Basal Cell Carcinoma on the Distal Third of the Nose.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The primary aim of this study is to determine a quantifiable difference in surgical outcomes between local skin flap, full thickness skin graft (FTSG), and secondary intention (SI) following Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) on the distal third of the nose. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 66 MMS defects on the distal third of the nose performed by a single surgeon between June 2019 to June 2020 was completed. Clinical images of MMS defects and postoperative scars at six months were recorded and measured by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Pearson Chi-square and Fisher's Exact tests were utilized to determine the relationship between the main predictor variables and VSS. Results: <0.0001) with patients treated with local skin flap having better outcomes. Conclusion: Our data illustrate that local skin flaps might result in a lower VSS at six months compared to FTSG or SI, therefore offering superior surgical outcomes in the treatment of BCC on the distal third of the nose.
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) | 0.001 | 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".