MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap and Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap in Postmastectomy Reconstruction: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2004· article· en· W2029745960 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast reconstructionSurgeryDIEP flapFree flapRectus abdominis muscleMammaplastyPerforator flapsAnatomyBreast cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and the free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap in postmastectomy reconstruction using a cost-effectiveness analysis. A decision analytic model was used. Medical costs associated with the two techniques were estimated from the Ontario Ministry of Health Schedule of Benefits for 2002. Hospital costs were obtained from St. Joseph's Healthcare, a university teaching hospital in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The utilities of clinically important health states related to breast reconstruction were obtained from 32 "experts" across Canada and converted into quality-adjusted life years. The probabilities of these various clinically important health states being associated with the DIEP and free TRAM flaps were obtained after a thorough review of the literature. The DIEP flap was more costly than the free TRAM flap ($7026.47 versus $6508.29), but it provided more quality-adjusted life years than the free TRAM flap (28.88 years versus 28.53 years). The baseline incremental cost-utility ratio was $1464.30 per quality-adjusted life year, favoring adoption of the DIEP flap. Sensitivity analyses were performed by assuming that the probabilities of occurrence of hernia, abdominal bulging, total flap loss, operating room time, and hospital stay were identical with the DIEP and free TRAM techniques. By assuming that the probability of postoperative hernia for the DIEP flap increased from 0.008 to 0.054 (same as for TRAM flap), the incremental cost-utility ratio changed to $1435.00 per quality-adjusted life year. A sensitivity analysis was performed for the complication of hernia because the DIEP flap allegedly diminishes this complication. Increasing the probability of abdominal bulge from 0.041 to 0.103 for the DIEP flap changed the ratio to $2731.78 per quality-adjusted life year. When the probability of total flap failure was increased from 0.014 to 0.016, the ratio changed to $1384.01 per quality-adjusted life year. When the time in the operating room was assumed to be the same for both flaps, the ratio changed to $4026.57 per quality-adjusted life year. If the hospital stay was assumed to be the same for both flaps, the ratio changed to $1944.30 per quality-adjusted life year. On the basis of the baseline calculation and sensitivity analyses, the DIEP flap remained a cost-effective procedure. Thus, adoption of this new technique for postmastectomy reconstruction is warranted in the Canadian health care system.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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