MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343598558 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000001398

Donor-Site Hernia Repair in Abdominal Flap Breast Reconstruction

2015· article· en· W2343598558 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

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDIEP flapMedicineBreast reconstructionSurgeryHerniaRectus abdominis muscleAbdominal HerniaHernia repairAbdominal wallBreast cancerMastectomyMammaplastyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The authors investigated hernia repair rates following pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM), free TRAM, and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction in English National Health Service hospitals. METHODS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent pedicled TRAM, free TRAM, or DIEP flap breast reconstruction procedures in English National Health Service hospitals between April of 2006 and March of 2012 were identified using the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Women who underwent mastectomy without reconstruction acted as controls, and hernia repair rates were calculated for all four groups. Multiple Cox regression was performed to estimate the relative risk of hernia repair among the reconstruction groups, adjusted for age, obesity, previous abdominal surgery, reconstruction year, and bilateral flap harvest. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2012, 7929 women had a DIEP or TRAM flap breast reconstruction. The overall hernia repair rate within 3 years was 2.45 percent after abdominal flap breast reconstruction, and 0.28 percent among the 15,679 women who had mastectomy only. Mean time to hernia repair following an abdominal flap harvest was 17.7 months. Compared with DIEP flaps, free and pedicled TRAM flap procedures were associated with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.81 (95 percent CI, 1.24 to 2.64) and 2.89 (95 percent CI, 1.91 to 4.37), respectively. The only independent risk factor for hernia repair was age older than 60 years (p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction carries a small risk of subsequent donor-site hernia repair. The rates herein can be used to inform patients and to assess quality of care across service providers. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · 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