Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An important part of preoperative assessment in breast reduction surgery is to locate the site of the nipple-areola complex for the newly structured breast. Inappropriate location is difficult to correct secondarily. Traditional methods of nipple localization taught and practiced suggest the nipple to be located anterior to the inframammary fold. Trying to project this point on the anterior surface of the breast requires either large calipers or feeling the posteriorly placed finger on the anterior surface of a large breast. This certainly introduces some subjectivity to the calculation. OBJECTIVES: To introduce an easy and accurate method of nipple localization to reduce the learning curve for trainee surgeons. METHODS: Aesthetic placement of the nipples is at the lower angles of an equilateral or a short isosceles triangle on the chest with its apex at the sternal angle. This triangle can be thought of as two right-angled triangles with their Y-axis on the median plane. The base and vertical limb are measured, and the hypotenuse is calculated. The location of the lower angle is marked on the anterior surface of the breast and represents the new position of the nipple. RESULTS: Forty patients had nipple localization performed in the above-described manner, with satisfactory placement of the nipple-areola complex. CONCLUSIONS: The above technique introduces some objective measurements to the localization of the nipple in breast reduction surgery. It is easy to practice, and infuses confidence in trainees marking their initial breast reductions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".