MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1877511276 · doi:10.1093/asj/sjv175

Commentary on: Evaluation of the Effects of Silicone Implants on the Breast Parenchyma

2015· letter· en· W1877511276 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth J. Hall-Findlay

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Surgery Journal · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsBanff Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParenchymaImplantBreast augmentationAtrophyMagnetic resonance imagingSiliconeBlood flowBreast implantSurgeryNuclear medicineRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates the changes in parenchyma volume after breast augmentation in a group of 23 patients who had subglandular implants and a control group of 10 patients without augmentation. 1 Breast volume was evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) preoperatively, and at 6 months and 12 months postoperatively. The authors note that the breast volume decreased by a mean of 22% at 12 months and they state that the compression of the implant on the parenchyma may have caused atrophy from vascular compression and reduced blood flow.

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)0.002
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.267
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 designCase report
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAesthetic Surgery JournalSame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207