Analysis of the efficacy of marketing tools in facial plastic surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare referral sources to a facial plastic surgery practice and to develop models correlating the referral source with the decision for surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study. SETTING: Well-established, metropolitan, private facial plastic surgery practice with training fellowship affiliated with an academic centre. METHODS: One-thousand eighty-nine new consecutive patients presenting between January 2001 and December 2005 recorded intake data including age, gender, and chief complaint. Final data input was their decision for or against surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures included differences in referral sources based on data collected and how those sources related to decision for surgery. RESULTS: A 50% conversion rate was found. Women and older patients were more likely to be referred from magazines, television, and newspapers and for facial rejuvenation. Men and younger patients were more likely to be referred from the website and for rhinoplasty. For facial rejuvenation, both the number of patients interested in and the probability that they agreed to the procedure increased with age. For rhinoplasty, the converse was true. The most likely patients to schedule surgery were those who were referred from other patients, friends, or family members in our practice. CONCLUSIONS: The data confirm that word-of-mouth referrals are the most important source for predicting which patients will elect to proceed with surgery in this established facial cosmetic surgery practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".