MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383105764 · doi:10.1055/a-2122-6029

Venous Free Flap with Interposition Bypass Graft for Arteriovenous Fistula Preservation: A Case Report

2023· article· en· W4383105764 on OpenAlexaff
Cyril Awaida, Marion Aribert, Natalie Weger, Kendall J. Keck, Andrei Odobescu

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Plastic Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArteriovenous fistulaSurgeryAnastomosisCephalic veinFistulaVeinForearmFree flapArteriovenous AnastomosisLower limbs venous ultrasonographySuperficial veinRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) overlying an arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is rare and presents unique challenges. This case report describes a method of fistula preservation after CSCC excision using a flow-through venous free flap. The saphenous vein of the venous flap was used as flow-through segment for AVF preservation. The flap was inserted along the dorsal aspect of the forearm wound and microvascular anastomosis of the arterial inflow was completed using a vein just proximal to the radiocephalic fistula anastomosis. Venous outflow was established by creating an end-to-end vascular anastomosis between the cephalic vein and the greater saphenous vein. A separate subcutaneous vein was used to provide a low-pressure outflow for the flap to avoid congestion. This case demonstrates an option for AVF preservation that has not been previously described. It also highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for the safe treatment of CSCCs overlying AVFs.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Plastic SurgerySame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207