An Algorithmic Approach to Umbilical Inset during DIEP Flap Reconstruction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: An aesthetically pleasing umbilicus is a critical component to the overall cosmesis and resultant patient satisfaction after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. Because of variables in body habitus, comorbidities, and technical aspects of the procedure, patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction are at a higher risk of umbilical complications and poor aesthetic appearance of the neoumbilicus compared with those undergoing cosmetic abdominoplasty. To minimize these potential problems and maximize the overall aesthetic appearance of the abdomen, the authors propose an algorithmic approach to umbilical inset after DIEP flap harvest that takes into account several critical factors: the thickness of the subcutaneous tissue of the abdominal flap, the length of the umbilical stalk, and the depth of the umbilical bowl. This simple algorithmic approach is a useful tool that will assist surgeons in minimizing umbilical complications and delivering a superior cosmetic appearance to the abdominal donor site in DIEP flap reconstruction.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it