MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W235523091 · doi:10.1177/229255030801600109

Minimal Inframammary Incision for Breast Augmentation

2008· article· en· W235523091 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nabil Fanous, Caroline Tawilé, Julie Brousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsLachine Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInframammary foldMedicineBreast augmentationPatient satisfactionSurgeryImplant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inframammary approach in breast augmentation, still the most popular technique among plastic surgeons, has always been hampered by the undesirable appearance of its scar. The present paper describes a modified approach to inframammary augmentation with saline-filled prostheses. This approach uses a very short incision, thus resulting in a much less noticeable scar. The surgical technique is easy to learn, simple to execute, does not necessitate any special equipment and gives consistent results. Decreasing the scar length to an absolute minimum ensures higher patient and surgeon satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207