Skin Replacement Epicanthoplasty and Concomitant Septoaponeurosis Junctional Thickening Double Eyelidplasty for Cosmetic Blepharoplasty in Asians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the clinical effect of skin replacement epicanthoplasty combined with SAJT (septoaponeurosis junctional thickening) double eyelidplasty. METHODS: This retrospective study included 114 patients (2 males, 112 females) who underwent skin replacement epicanthoplasty combined with SAJT double eyelidplasty between July 2015 and June 2021. Surgical outcomes were measured using intercanthal distance (ICD)/interpupillary distance (IPD) ratios, and postoperative upper eyelid morphology. The subjective satisfaction and incidence of complications were also documented. RESULTS: After 12 months of postoperative follow-up, the postoperative ICD ratio significantly reduced from 0.58 preoperatively to 0.53 postoperatively ( P <0.05). The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) score averaged 1.1 ± 0.4, and no hypertrophic scarring was observed. The majority of patients (98.2%) were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the cosmetic outcomes. There were no significant complications. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of skin replacement epicanthoplasty combined with SAJT double eyelidplasty, with high patient satisfaction and minimal postoperative complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".