MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386471601 · doi:10.1055/a-2168-4771

Donor-Site Morbidity Analysis of Thenar and Hypothenar Flap

2023· article· en· W4386471601 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Plastic Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background For the small glabrous skin defect, Thenar and Hypothenar skin are useful donors and they have been used as a free flap. Because of similar skin characteristics, both flaps have same indications. We will conduct comparative study for the donor morbidity of the Free thenar flap and Hypothenar free flap. Methods From January 2011 to December 2021, demographic data, characteristics of each flap, and complications using retrospective chart review were obtained. Donor outcomes of the patient, who had been followed up for more than 6 months, were measured using photographic analysis and physical examination. General pain was assessed by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score, neuropathic pain was assessed by Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) score, scar appearance was assessed by modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS), and patient satisfaction was assessed on a 3-point scale. Statistical analysis was performed on the outcomes. Results Out of the 39 survey respondents, 17 patients received Free thenar flaps, and 22 patients received Hypothenar free flaps. Thenar group had higher NRS, DN4, and mVSS (p < 0.05). The average scores for the Thenar and Hypothenar groups were 1.35 and 0.27 for NRS, 2.41 and 0.55 for DN4, and 3.12 and 1.59 for mVSS, respectively. Despite the Hypothenar group showing greater satisfaction on the 3-point scale (1.82) compared with the Thenar group (1.47), the difference was not significant (p = 0.085). Linear regression analysis indicated that flap width did not have a notable impact on the outcome measures, and multiple linear regression analysis revealed no significant interaction between flap width and each of the outcome measures. Conclusion Despite the limited number of participants, higher donor morbidity in general pain, neuropathic pain, and scar formation was noted in the Thenar free flap compared with the Hypothenar free flap. However, no difference in overall patient satisfaction was found between the two groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · 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