Review of Data Describing Outcomes That Are Used to Assess Changes in Quality of Life after Reduction Mammaplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although plastic surgeons have empirically "known" of the benefits of reduction mammaplasty for their patients, a paucity of outcome studies have been reported. For this study, an attempt to perform a meta-analysis of outcomes in reduction mammaplasty was undertaken. A computer literature search was performed of the MEDLINE database for the period between 1966 and September of 1997 for the Medical Subject Headings mammaplasty and outcome measures. Reference lists were used for additional reports. No trials were identified that met the criteria for meta-analysis. Seventeen publications met less restrictive review criteria that evaluated quality-of-life outcome measures. A systematic evaluation of patient-focused outcome measures demonstrated that consistent improvement in physical symptoms was found across most studies, as was a high degree of patient satisfaction (78 to 95 percent very or moderately satisfied), and some have shown improvement in body image and psychological well-being. However, although this review does identify consistent improvements in patient quality of life after reduction mammaplasty, inconsistencies among study designs do not allow formal meta-analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".