Neurotization of the radial forearm free flap improves swallowing outcomes in hemiglossectomy defects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the effect of free tissue neurotization on speech and swallowing outcomes for patients undergoing reconstruction of hemiglossectomy defects with a radial forearm free flap (RFFF). METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in patients with oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma undergoing a hemiglossectomy and reconstruction with a RFFF. Functional outcomes including nutritional mode, range of liquids and solids, and speech understandability were analyzed 1-year post-treatment. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included in this analysis, 41 of whom had neurotized flaps (49%). No significant differences in demographic or clinical variables were seen between the neurotized and non-neurotized groups. On multivariate analysis controlling for BMI, flap area, and N-classification, patients with neurotized flaps were significantly more likely to have normal range of liquids and solids and less likely to have a G-tube. CONCLUSIONS: Neurotization of RFFF reconstructing hemiglossectomy defects results in decreased G-tube dependence and improved range of liquids and solids.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".