MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414378915 · doi:10.1016/j.cpsurg.2025.101896

Scalp reconstruction after oncologic resection: A retrospective comparative study of acellular dermal matrices and local flap

2025· article· en· W4414378915 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Problems in Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalpPatient satisfactionRetrospective cohort studyComplicationVisual analogue scaleWide local excision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scalp reconstruction following oncologic resection presents significant challenges due to limited tissue mobility, functional requirements, and aesthetic considerations. Traditional approaches include local flaps, which provide vascularized, durable coverage but may involve longer operative times and donor site morbidity. Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) offer a staged, less invasive alternative, potentially suitable for patients with limited donor options or reduced surgical tolerance. This study compares ADM and local flaps in terms of healing, complications, and aesthetic outcomes, with the aim of identifying clinical contexts in which each technique may be preferred. This retrospective case-control study included 45 patients undergoing scalp reconstruction after wide local excision of skin tumors. Patients were divided into two groups: ADM-based reconstruction and local flap-based reconstruction. Primary outcomes included wound healing time, complication rates, and aesthetic results (Vancouver Scar Scale and Patient Satisfaction Scores). Secondary outcomes included operative time, hospital stay, and need for secondary procedures. Statistical comparisons used t-tests and Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.05). Flap reconstruction resulted in faster wound healing (23 ± 4 days vs. 72 ± 8 days; p < 0.05) and shorter total operative time (59 ± 5 vs. 77 ± 7.6 minutes; p < 0.05), although ADM allowed for shorter first-stage procedures. ADM was associated with a higher rate of localized infection (19%), while flaps more frequently showed partial necrosis (16%). Aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction were comparable. Complication rates did not differ significantly by age. Hair loss did not affect satisfaction in the ADM group, which included mainly older patients. Both ADM and local flaps are effective reconstructive options, each with distinct advantages. ADM may be preferable in frail patients or when donor site availability is limited, while flaps remain the standard for large or high-tension defects. Rather than competing, these techniques should be viewed as complementary tools within a patient-specific reconstructive strategy. Further studies are warranted to refine selection criteria and explore hybrid approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.283 · 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