Oncoplastic reduction using the vertical scar superior-medial pedicle pattern technique for immediate partial breast reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast reduction in women with medium to large breasts has reportedly benefitted them both oncologically and cosmetically. We present our experience with an oncoplastic breast reduction technique using a vertical scar superior-medial pedicle pattern for immediate partial breast reconstruction. METHODS: All patients with breast tumours who underwent vertical scar superior-medial pedicle reduction pattern oncoplastic surgery at our centre between September 2006 and June 2010 were retrospectively studied. Follow-up continued from 12 months to 6 years. RESULTS: Twenty women (age 28-72 yr) were enrolled: 16 with invasive carcinoma and 4 with benign tumours. They all had tumour-free surgical margins, and no further oncological operations were required. The patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction from the surgical outcome in terms of improved quality of life and a good cosmetic result. CONCLUSION: The vertical scar superior-medial pedicle reduction pattern is a versatile oncoplastic technique that allows breast tissue rearrangement for various tumour locations. It is oncologically beneficial and is associated with high patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".