MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016358693 · doi:10.1586/erp.11.105

Measuring and managing patient expectations for breast reconstruction: impact on quality of life and patient satisfaction

2012· review· en· W2016358693 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

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsPatient satisfactionQuality of life (healthcare)Quality (philosophy)MedicineIntensive care medicinePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of postmastectomy breast reconstruction is to restore a woman's body image and to satisfy her personal expectations regarding the results of surgery. Studies in other surgical areas have shown that unrecognized or unfulfilled expectations may predict dissatisfaction more strongly than even the technical success of the surgery. Patient expectations play an especially critical role in elective procedures, such as cancer reconstruction, where the patient's primary motivation is improved health-related quality of life. In breast reconstruction, assessment of patient expectations is therefore vital to optimal patient care. This report summarizes the existing literature on patient expectations regarding breast reconstruction, and provides a viewpoint on how this field can evolve. Specifically, we consider how systematic measurement and management of patient expectations may improve patient education, shared medical decision-making and patient perception of outcomes.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.377 · 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