MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069954987 · doi:10.1177/1090820x10380401

Breast Implants: Saline or Silicone?

2010· review· en· W2069954987 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAesthetic Surgery Journal · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsGeorgetown Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiliconeMedicineSalineImplantBreast augmentationBreast implantSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States has seen significant shifts in the breast implant market over the past five decades. From the moratorium on silicone gel breast implants in 1992 to their approval in 2006, there have been many developments in their manufacturing and usage. Meanwhile, saline breast implants have remained somewhat unchanged, still offering a few distinct advantages but none of the technological innovation of the silicone gel models. In this article, the authors review the current state of silicone gel and saline implants, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each. Much of the current data on complications of gel and saline implants are examined, as well as some practical implications associated with the use of each implant type.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.271 · 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