MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast Reconstruction in Older Women: Should Age Be an Exclusion Criterion?

2006· article· en· W1973473751 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast reconstructionBreast cancerMastectomyQuality of life (healthcare)ComplicationPatient satisfactionRetrospective cohort studyIntervention (counseling)SurgeryGeneral surgeryCancerInternal medicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: At present, breast reconstruction is undertaken by fewer than 10 percent of breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy. Even though the benefits are numerous, this finding is even more notable among older women. Traditionally, women older than the age of 60 have been offered implant reconstruction or no reconstruction at all in hopes of minimizing potential morbidity. This practice may be due to a number of factors including a lack of patient education and information, as well as physician/surgeon bias regarding the safety or relevance of breast reconstruction in older women. METHODS: The authors undertook a retrospective study in which they surveyed 75 women (age range, 60 to 77 years) from two surgeons' practices who underwent various forms of breast reconstruction over the past 8 years. Type of reconstruction, recovery time, and complication rate were correlated with patient satisfaction, general health, and quality of life. RESULTS: An 81 percent response rate was obtained, yielding an average age of 66.6 years over a 3.8-year period. The overall rate of complications requiring operative intervention was 20.5 percent. When asked whether age should be a determining factor for breast reconstruction, more than 90 percent felt that it should not be. Only 16.1 percent of patients who had a delayed reconstruction stated that the option of breast reconstruction was presented to them at the time of their diagnosis, although 100 percent felt that it should have been. A significantly poorer physical health score was found among patients who experienced a complication, and lower mental health scores correlated with women who were less satisfied with their outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The authors believe that all types of reconstruction should be an option for women older than 60 years of age and that age as an isolated factor should not deter physicians from offering these women the option of breast reconstruction.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · 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