MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409251514 · doi:10.1055/a-2577-2805

When Reductive Rhinoplasty Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right

2025· article· en· W4409251514 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFacial Plastic Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsInterface Biologics (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRhinoplastyDeformityNoseDorsumReduction (mathematics)SurgeryResectionAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over-resection leads to many complications in rhinoplasty. Here, we detail the most common of these pitfalls and strategies to both avoid and repair them.The nose is frequently divided into thirds. The nasal bones represent the upper third. The middle third is composed of the dorsal septum and upper lateral cartilages. The lower third is comprised of the lower lateral cartilages and tip-supporting structures.The commonly seen sequelae of over-resection include a deep radix, saddle nose deformity, inverted-V deformity, pollybeak deformity, alar retraction, a pinched nasal tip, bossae, deep alar grooves, and external nasal valve collapse. The major mechanism to avoid these issues is avoidance; however, several grafting techniques are described here to correct overly aggressive reduction.It is critical to avoid the complications described in this manuscript. Just as important, it is necessary to know how to correct these deformities when patients present for revision rhinoplasty.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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