MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052442148

Scalp Reconstruction using Dermal Induction Template: State of the Art and Personal Experience.

2013· article· en· W7052442148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalpPeriosteumSkin cancerMohs surgeryPatient satisfactionCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The loss of skin envelope is a frequent and costly problem in health care. This article provides an overview on the state of the art in scalp reconstruction with dermal substitutes, as well as our personal experience of ten critical patients with non-melanoma skin cancer of the scalp. These patients were treated in a two-stage procedure by wide tumor excision, apposition of a dermal induction template (Hyalomatrix (R)) and successive skin grafting. Four patients underwent subgaleal tumor excision with preservation of the periosteum and six patients en bloc tumor excision together with the external cortical bone. A 10x10 cm template was used in all patients. Two weeks after demolition surgery, we observed neodermis formation. Results were documented by comparative photography, visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction, and Vancouver scar scale for evaluation of final graft characteristics. Patients were tumor-free during follow-up. The procedure achieved good scalp reshaping and graft scarring evolution. Patient satisfaction was high. Hyalomatrix (R) was effective for oncological scalp reconstruction in critical patients. It prepared the wound bed for graft take while awaiting histological diagnosis and confirmation of margin clearance. Further studies on dermal substitutes are needed to improve benefit in patients.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome)Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207