MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323053608 · doi:10.1055/s-0030-1270418

Patient Analysis and Selection in Aging Face Surgery

2011· review· en· W2323053608 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

VenueFacial Plastic Surgery · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBody Image and Dysmorphia Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialRejuvenationFace surgeryPopulation ageingPopulationPatient satisfactionSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in health, increased awareness of preventative medicine, and evolution have led to an increasingly older population worldwide. Surgical aesthetic facial rejuvenation has become increasingly popular, more accessible, and has lost much of the stigma that it once carried. This review will discuss proper patient analysis and selection for aging face surgery, including medical, anatomic, and psychosocial factors that are involved. Although the novice facial plastic surgeon typically focuses on facial analysis and operative techniques in aging face surgery, we caution that the patient's expectations, psychosocial comorbidities, and perioperative interpersonal experiences are the most important factors that yield patient satisfaction, which is the prime outcome that is meaningful in elective cosmetic surgery.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.252 · 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