Breast Reduction Scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that scarring is a primary reason for patient dissatisfaction with reduction mammaplasty. OBJECTIVES: The authors prospectively evaluated patient preferences for the 3 most common breast reduction scar patterns: horizontal, vertical, and Wise. METHODS: Sixty-six patients were recruited for the study before receiving their reduction mammaplasty consultation. Each patient was shown line drawings and postoperative photographs of the 3 breast reduction techniques and scored the scars on a modified 10-point Likert scale (1 = unacceptable; 10 = acceptable). The survey responses had no impact on the patients' medical care. A nonparametric Friedman test was used to compare the mean scores, and univariate generalized linear regression analysis was performed to adjust for confounding factors. Post hoc analysis was performed using the Bonferroni method. Significance was set at P < .001. RESULTS: Sixty patients completed the study. The mean preference ranking was significantly higher for the horizontal scar pattern versus vertical and Wise (P < .001). The mean score difference between the horizontal and Wise patterns was 2.982. The mean difference between the horizontal and vertical patterns was 2.27. There was no significant difference in preference between the vertical and Wise patterns. Linear regression analysis showed that age, body mass index, and torso/bra size had no significant effect on preference. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study designed to prospectively evaluate patient preferences regarding postoperative scars. Results indicate that the horizontal technique is preferable with respect to scar placement.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Case report | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".