Trends in Level of Evidence in Facial Plastic Surgery Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine has increasingly become an integral part of clinical research and practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the trends in the level of evidence in leading facial plastic surgery journals in recent years. METHODS: All scientific articles within the field of facial plastic surgery published in The Laryngoscope, Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Journal of Plastic Surgery, and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008 were rated for level of evidence. The presence of p values and confidence intervals was also noted. RESULTS: Of 975 articles reviewed, 88 percent were clinical and 88 percent were therapy articles. Overall, there was an increase in the average level of evidence of articles published from 1999 to 2008. There was also a significant increase in the proportion of articles reporting p values and confidence intervals. However, the number of articles containing level 1 or 2 evidence remains low. CONCLUSIONS: With the increased demand for evidence-based medicine, facial plastic surgery literature has seen an overall increase in the quantity of higher level evidence research published. However, articles representing level 1 and 2 evidence remain rare.
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 | 0.168 | 0.583 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".