MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290098924 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irac110

The Africa Temporal Scalp Flap: A Novel Flap for Facial Reconstruction

2022· article· en· W4290098924 on OpenAlexaff
Tertius Venter, Gary Parker, Alan D. Rogers, Laura E Clapham, Konrad Mende

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForeheadScalpSurgeryFacial reconstructionCheekNoseSuperficial temporal arteryFacial nerveRotation flapIschemiaMiddle cerebral artery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although a number of flaps exist for nasal reconstruction, severe scarring of the forehead after burn injury led to the development of a novel two-stage flap based on the superficial temporal artery. The Africa Temporal Scalp (ATS) flap is composed of an axial ascending part on the superficial temporal artery, and a descending anterior extension for reconstruction of the midface. This is a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent ATS flap surgery on the MV Africa Mercy. During the 7.5-year period, the ATS flap was applied to 45 facial reconstructions, with a median age of 28 years (range 19 months to 51 years). The main indications were previous burn injury (n = 27, 60%) and noma (n = 15, 33.3%). The majority of the flaps were used to reconstruct the lower third of the nose (n = 39, 86.7%), and the remaining six were for the lips or cheek. Experience allowed for earlier division than 3 weeks depending on the length of the flap, and the recipient site. There was one partial flap loss, one infection requiring revision, and two injuries to frontal branch of the facial nerve. The ATS flap is a novel two-stage flap that has proved especially versatile when forehead flaps are unavailable for nasal reconstruction due to extensive forehead scarring. The ATS flap reliably provides ample supple skin, and the donor site is effectively obscured from view, located in the periphery of the face.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicReconstructive Facial Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207