Delphi Consensus Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anatomically shaped, form-stable Natrelle 410 breast implants were approved in Europe in 1993 and in the United States in 2013. Although general guidelines for breast augmentation are available, the distinctive characteristics of Natrelle 410 warrant specific guidelines for this device. The goal of this study was to generate consensus recommendations for intraoperative technique and postoperative management with Natrelle 410 in primary breast augmentation. METHODS: Surgeons were invited to participate in the study, which used a modified Delphi method. Participants completed 2 rounds of online surveys; the second survey (Recommendations Survey) was generated based on first survey results. Respondents also listed top priorities for use of Natrelle 410. RESULTS: Participants (n = 22) reached consensus on 15 of 18 perioperative and surgical techniques; dual-plane placement, tight pockets, and limiting the boundaries of dissection were among intraoperative techniques considered most important for Natrelle 410. Consensus was reached for 18 of 32 items regarding postoperative management and 6 of 9 open-ended postoperative activity restrictions. Consensus on activity restrictions with specified time limits were similar to consensus recommendations on general restrictions. Top participant-identified intraoperative and postoperative management practices for Natrelle 410 were dual-plane placement of the implant and wearing a bra postoperatively, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi method identified consensus recommendations on a broad range of intraoperative techniques and postoperative management practices for primary breast augmentation with Natrelle 410. These recommendations and priorities provide surgeons with a framework that, together with the surgeon's experience, will contribute to optimal clinical outcomes with Natrelle 410.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.199 | 0.307 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.020 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".