MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Symptoms and Related Severity Experienced by Women with Breast Hypertrophy

2007· article· en· W2010971760 on OpenAlexaff
Leif Sigurdson, Eric Mykhalovskiy, Susan Kirkland, Anu Pallen

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyMuscle hypertrophyFacilitatorInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Breast hypertrophy is a common condition that can be associated with significant morbidity. Symptoms emphasized in the literature include physical problems such as pain, intertrigo, and exercise restrictions. The purpose of this study was to explore the suffering experienced by women with breast hypertrophy and to evaluate the importance of different symptoms. METHODS: Twenty-one women with breast hypertrophy were divided into five focus groups guided by a facilitator. Open discussion was encouraged to generate a comprehensive list of symptoms experienced by women with breast hypertrophy. Subjects then completed an iterative process to determine the relative importance of each symptom. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using Nvivo software. RESULTS: A weighted list of 45 dominant symptoms was created from an initial pool of 128. Physical pain symptoms predominated in the older age group, whereas younger women expressed more psychological symptoms. Difficulties experienced by these women transcended all aspects of their lives. Back, neck, and shoulder pain were considered most troublesome, followed by exercise difficulties, poor posture, and low self-esteem. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the burden of breast hypertrophy and has implications for the objective assessment of this condition in the clinical setting.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207