Breast volume determination in breast hypertrophy: an accurate method using two anthropomorphic measurements.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Precise determination of breast volume facilitates reconstructive procedures and helps in the planning of tissue removal for breast reduction surgery. Various methods currently used to measure breast size are limited by technical drawbacks and unreliable volume determinations. The purpose of this study was to develop a formula to predict breast volume based on straightforward anthropomorphic measurements. METHODS: One hundred one women participated in this study. Eleven anthropomorphic measurements were obtained on 202 breasts. Breast volumes were determined using a water displacement technique. Multiple stepwise linear regression was used to determine predictive variables and a unifying formula. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 37.7 years, with a mean body mass index of 31.8. Mean breast volumes on the right and left sides were 1328 and 1305 cc, respectively (range, 330 to 2600 cc). The final regression model incorporated the variables of breast base circumference in a standing position and a vertical measurement from the inframammary fold to a point representing the projection of the fold onto the anterior surface of the breast. The derived formula showed an adjusted R of 0.89, indicating that almost 90 percent of the variation in breast size was explained by the model. CONCLUSION: Surgeons may find this formula a practical and relatively accurate method of determining breast volume.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".