A Unique Presentation of Focal Auricular Arteriovenous Malformation: from Embryology to Angiosome Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Auricular arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are rare vascular anomalies, being the second most prevalent after cheek AVMs. Their management presents challenges. OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore the clinical presentation of ear AVMs, highlighting a unique pattern of focal auricular AVM. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted over 7 years, focusing on patients diagnosed with focal auricular AVMs. Exclusions included non-AVM diagnosis, adjacent anatomical site extensions, and lack of patient information or photos. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with auricular AVMs were identified, 13/22 with isolated focal AVMs, 8/13 females, 5/13 males, 5/13 with right ear involvement, and 8/13 with left ear involvement. A consistent presentation involving the upper 2/3 of the pinna while sparing the root of the helix/tragus/antitragus/concha and lobule was noticed. CONCLUSION: This study focuses on focal auricular AVMs, revealing a uniform pattern while sparing specific structures. Embryological evaluation, vascular supply analysis, and angiosome theory shed light on potential tissue layers as the nidus in those cases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".