The Challenges in Presenting Complex Studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sir: Dr. Friedman’s comments regarding our article highlight some of the challenges that are inherent in the presentation of certain elements of a somewhat abstract scientific subject to a readership composed largely of clinicians. Our objective in this article was to share our electron microscopic observations of periprosthetic breast capsules and to demonstrate that differences in clinical practice may lead to alterations in their structure. Needless to say, discussion and debate concerning articles that shed light on new aspects of the periprosthetic capsule are necessary and ensure that the body of knowledge in this emerging area of our field continues to grow, ultimately leading to improvements in the implant-based operations that we as plastic surgeons offer our patients. However, on carefully reviewing Dr. Friedman’s letter, we note that he compares the scanning electron microscope to the light microscope, which is by nature completely different.1 This inappropriate comparison is doubled by an apparent misunderstanding of the process involved in scanning electron microscopy.2 Light microscopy is the transmission of photons through the specimens and indeed requires a cell biologist or pathologist for accurate analysis. In contrast, scanning electron microscopy is performed by scanning of a fine electron beam over the sample and is performed by specialized technicians. Many members of our team use scanning electron microscopy on a regular basis and have published several articles on the breast capsule and other topics using this tool. With respect to the publication review process, many pertinent questions regarding scanning electron microscopy were addressed by our team before the article was accepted. The images were selected to accurately reflect the multiple sample analysis that was performed in this study while respecting the guidelines and limits of the Journal. Both images in the first figure were shot at the same magnification, but the right part is a subset of a larger image. We decided to show only the capsule interface, to remove information that was irrelevant to the basic research question (Fig. 1).3Fig. 1: First image presented in the article. Images were acquired from the scanning electron microscope. (Left) The upper part is the cross-section of capsule (arrowhead indicates a blood vessel) and is separated by a dashed line from the prosthesis interface on the lower part. (Right) Schematic depiction of sample orientation of the left image (rectangle indicates scanned field).In the fourth figure, we stated in the figure legend that both group 3 and group 4 displayed comparable capsular architecture measurements taken using computer software, as described in the Methods section, and were used to ascertain this. We did not feel that submitting the same image twice would have added any valuable scientific information to the reader. With regard to blinding, we did mention that all scanning electron microscopic sample analyses were performed in a blinded fashion. All patients were assigned an inclusion number. The specimens were transferred to the scanning electron microscopy laboratory labeled only by their respective number. Once analyzed, results were sent back to the first author for compilation with the clinical data. DISCLOSURE Dr. Danino is a consultant and speaker for Allergan Inc. None of the other authors has any commercial associations or financial interests to declare with respect to any of the information or products presented in this communication. Operational study costs were partially supported by an Allergan Inc. industry research grant. Jean-Philippe Giot, M.D., Ph.D. Laurence S. Paek, M.D. M. Alain Danino, M.D., Ph.D. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery University of Montreal Hospital Center Université de Montréal Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,160 | 0,501 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,029 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,040 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».