Patient Self-Assessment of the Cosmetic Results of Breast Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In a previous study, the authors evaluated factors that contribute to patient satisfaction with breast reconstruction, using a comprehensive chart review and questionnaire. The results of part of this questionnaire, regarding patients' rating of the cosmetic result of their breast reconstruction, are presented in this article. Methods: The questionnaire was mailed to 267 patients, 214 questionnaires (80.1 percent) were returned, and 200 contained a response to the question rating the overall cosmetic outcome of breast reconstruction (Fig. 1). To conduct a statistical analysis, the data were collapsed into two smaller groups. An “excellent” or “good” result was considered a “favorable” outcome, while lower responses were “unfavorable” outcomes.Fig. 1.: Portion of questionnaire analyzed for this study. Note that the responses to overall cosmesis were later condensed into “favorable” versus “unfavorable” categories to facilitate statistical analysis.Results: The outcome was rated as excellent by 82 patients, good by 76 patients, fair by 31 patients, and poor by 11 patients. A significant association was found between overall cosmesis and breast size, shape, or scars. Conclusion: It should not be assumed that patients' responses regarding satisfaction with reconstruction will reflect their specific feelings regarding cosmetic results.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".