Continental Preferences in Reconstruction of Pharyngolaryngectomy Defects: A Multi‐National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Reconstruction of total pharyngolaryngectomy defects may restore pharyngeal function and enable tracheoesophageal speech after resection of locoregionally advanced malignancy. Little remains known about variations in the practices and preferences of surgeons across differing global regions. METHODS: A survey was sent to reconstructive head and neck surgeons across three continents with responses analyzed to evaluate trends. RESULTS: Of 155 respondents, 79.4% (n = 123) completed the survey including surgeons from North America (USA/Canada), the Indian Subcontinent (India/Bangladesh) and Australia/New Zealand. Among surgeons trained in pedicle flap reconstruction, only 47.5% performed these procedures after completion of training. Pedicle flaps were performed most frequently by surgeons from the Indian subcontinent. The anterolateral thigh flap was most popular among surgeons for free flap reconstruction, 58.5% (n = 72). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates significant region-based variation in preferred reconstructive modality, suggesting location of practice and institutional experience influence the reconstructive algorithms of head and neck surgeons.
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 | 0.001 | 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".