MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389110429 · doi:10.1055/s-0043-1777098

“P6LAND”: An Educational Tool for Free Flaps

2023· article· en· W4389110429 on OpenAlexafffund
Natalia Ziolkowski, Siba Haykal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgery Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCompendiumDissection (medical)MedicineMedical educationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Microsurgical education requires both technical skill and didactic knowledge. Learners are frequently asked to describe free flaps and their knowledge tested in clinical work and during exams. Methods We have created an educational tool that will aid learners in remembering important information related to flaps. Results “P6LAND” which divides and organizes information into three parts: Preoperative considerations, Pedicle, Position, LANDmarks, Plane of dissection, Protection and Postoperative considerations. Conclusion The aim of this paper is to further describe this educational tool and to provide a compendium for the most common fasciocutaneous, muscle, perforator, and bone flaps based on the literature. This tool was also prevalidated among a group of learners.

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reconstructive Microsurgery OpenSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207