MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Health Burden of Breast Hypertrophy

2001· article· en· W1985414572 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineMuscle hypertrophyQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyHealth careInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women seeking consultation for the surgical relief of symptoms associated with breast hypertrophy have been the focus of many studies. In contrast, little is known about those women with breast hypertrophy who do not seek symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to describe the health burden of breast hypertrophy by using a set of validated questionnaires and to compare women with breast hypertrophy who seek surgical treatment with those who do not. In addition, this latter group was compared with a group of control women without breast hypertrophy. Women seeking consultation for surgery were recruited from 14 plastic-surgery practices. Control subjects were recruited by advertisements in primary-care offices and newspapers. Women were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire that included the European Quality of Life (EuroQol) questionnaire, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Multidimensional Body Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ), the Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire, and questions regarding breast-related symptoms, comorbidities, and bra size. Descriptive statistics were compiled for three groups of women: (1) hypertrophy patients seeking surgical care, (2) hypertrophy control subjects (those whose reported bra-cup size was a D or larger), and (3) normal control subjects (those whose reported bra-cup size was an A, B, or C). The multiple linear regression method was used to compare the health burdens across groups while adjusting for other variables. Two hundred ninety-one women seeking surgical care and 195 control subjects were enrolled in the study. The 184 control subjects with bra-cup information available were further separated into 88 hypertrophy control subjects and 96 normal control subjects. In the control group, bra-cup size was correlated with health-burden measures, whereas in the surgical candidates, it was not. When scores were compared across the three groups, significant differences were found in all health-burden measures. The surgical candidates scored more poorly on the EuroQol utility, McGill pain rating index, MBSRQ appearance evaluation, physical component scale of the SF-36, and on breast symptoms than did the two control groups. In addition, the hypertrophy control subjects scored more poorly than the normal control subjects. With multiple linear regression analysis incorporating important potential confounders, the poorer scores in the surgical candidates remained statistically significant. It was concluded that breast hypertrophy in those seeking surgical care and those not seeking surgery has a significant impact on women's quality of life as measured by validated and widely used self-report instruments including the EuroQol, MBSRQ, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and the SF-36. Likewise, a new assessment instrument for breast-related symptoms also demonstrated greater symptomatology in women with breast hypertrophy.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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