MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977647456 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3181d0accf

Who Is Providing Aesthetic Surgery? A Detailed Examination of the Geographic Distribution and Training Backgrounds of Cosmetic Practitioners in Southern California

2010· article· en· W1977647456 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew C. Camp, Wendy W. Wong, Ryan Y. Wong, Jennifer S. Camp, Andrew Son, Gupta Sc

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Contouring and Surgery
Canadian institutionsEsri (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiposuctionPlastic surgeryFocus groupSurgeryCertificationMarketingManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of non-plastic surgeons performing cosmetic procedures. This has the potential to have an impact on the plastic surgery practitioner by increasing competition and bringing into question the assurance of patient safety. In this study, a demographic analysis was performed of providers of invasive and minimally invasive cosmetic treatments in the Southern California region. METHODS: Providers of minimally invasive aesthetic procedures were catalogued using the sales lists from the manufacturers of the hyaluronic acid fillers Juvéderm and Restylane. The data set was further analyzed to enumerate the providers of surgical treatments, with a focus on the provision of liposuction. Data were analyzed using Environmental Systems Research Institute ArcGIS to focus on the Southern California area. Physician board certification and training background were detailed exhaustively. RESULTS: In the 45,238-square mile area encompassing the San Diego/Los Angeles megalopolis, there are 1867 cosmetic practitioners offering hyaluronic acid injections. Of this number, 495 are trained in plastic surgery. In the same geographic region, there are 834 individuals offering liposuction. Practitioners are concentrated in downtown Los Angeles and San Diego, where the potential patient-to-provider ratios are 1088:1 and 1185:1, respectively. Interestingly, primary care physicians comprise the third largest group providing hyaluronic acid fillers and the fourth largest group of liposuction providers. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' data demonstrate that there are numerous non-plastic surgeons performing cosmetic procedures, especially in the field of minimally invasive therapies. In addition, there is a growing contingent of non-surgery-trained individuals providing surgical cosmetic treatments, especially liposuction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicBody Contouring and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207