MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293832955 · doi:10.1089/fpsam.2021.0348

Nasal Reconstruction in Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis: A Two Decade Review

2022· letter· en· W4293832955 on OpenAlexaff
Andres Gantous, Rodrigo Fortunato Fernández-Pellón Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueFacial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGranulomatosis with polyangiitisMedicineSurgeryRhinoplastyNoseSoft tissueDeformityRetrospective cohort studyDiseaseVasculitisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) leads to progressive destruction of the nasal tissues resulting varying degrees of saddle deformity and nasal obstruction. Reconstructive techniques are numerous, but there are no large series reporting their results. Objective: This study sought to measure complications and outcomes after rhinoplasty for GPA. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 42 patients with GPA who underwent nasal reconstruction of saddle nose deformity between 2005 and 2019 using primarily costal cartilage and soft tissue grafts. Results: Thirty-six patients met the criteria for inclusion. All were followed for a minimum of 12 months. Six patients required revision surgery due to infection or GPA flare ups. Five patients had complications. All patients were given a questionnaire at 12 months to rate their degree of satisfaction with their appearance and breathing. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the use of strong cartilage grafts and the timing of surgery result in improvement in breathing and appearance after rhinoplasty in patients with GPA. Clinical Trial Registration number: REB # 21-125.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFacial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic MedicineSame topicNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesFrench-language works237,207