Level of Evidence in Plastic Surgery Research
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a recent shift toward evidence-based medicine in the medical and surgical literature. The objective of this study was to determine the level of evidence of published plastic surgery articles. METHODS: A review of the following four major plastic surgery journal publications was performed to determine the level of evidence utilized in the published studies: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), Annals of Plastic Surgery (Annals), Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery (JPRAS), and American Journal of Aesthetic Surgery (Aesthetic) from January 1 to December 31, 2007. RESULTS: Of the 1759 articles reviewed, 726 (41 percent) were included (animal studies, cadaver studies, basic science studies, review articles, instructional course lectures, and correspondence were excluded). The articles were ranked according to their level [level I (highest evidence, e.g., randomized-controlled trials) to level IV (lowest evidence, e.g., case reports)]. The average level of evidence in each journal was as follows: PRS, 3.05; Aesthetic, 3.11; JPRAS, 3.35; and Annals, 3.31. The evidence differed significantly between journals (p < 0.05), except when JPRAS was compared with the Aesthetic journal. Only 2.2 percent of articles were level I evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The average level of evidence in four major plastic surgery journals was 3.2 (level III). In order for the plastic surgery profession to become a participant in higher-level evidence-based medicine, greater emphasis must be placed on prospective randomized blinded trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.441 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it