The Ansa Hypoglossi: Quantifying Axonal Density of a Donor Nerve for Facial Reinnervation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are a number of nerve grafting options for facial reanimation and the ansa hypoglossi (AH) may be considered in select situations. Objective: To compare axonal density, area, and diameter of AH with other nerves more usually used for facial reanimation. Methods: AH specimens from patients undergoing neck dissections were submitted in formalin. Proximal to distal cross sections, nerve diameters, and the number of axons per nerve, proximally and distally, were measured and counted. Results: Eighteen nerve specimens were analyzed. The average manual axon count for the distal and proximal nerve sections was 1378 ± 333 and 1506 ± 306, respectively. The average QuPath counts for the proximal and distal nerve sections were 1381 ± 325 and 1470 ± 334, respectively. The mean nerve area of the proximal and distal nerve sections was 0.206 ± 0.01 and 0.22 ± 0.064 mm 2 , respectively. The mean nerve diameter for the proximal and distal nerve sections were 0.498 ± 0.121 and 0.526 ± 0.75 mm, respectively. Conclusion: The histological characteristics of the AH support clinical examination of outcomes as a promising option in facial reanimation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".