MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474754982 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000002280

Secondary Breast Augmentation

2016· review· en· W2474754982 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell H. Brown, Ron B. Somogyi, Shagun Aggarwal

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast augmentationMedicineCapsular contractureAugmentation MammoplastySurgeryImplantIncidence (geometry)General surgeryBreast reconstructionBreast cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Assess common clinical problems in the secondary breast augmentation patient. 2. Describe a treatment plan to correct the most common complications of breast augmentation. 3. Provide surgical and nonsurgical options for managing complications of breast augmentation. 4. Decrease the incidence of future complications through accurate assessment, preoperative planning, and precise surgical technique. SUMMARY: Breast augmentation has been increasing steadily in popularity over the past three decades. Many of these patients present with secondary problems or complications following their primary breast augmentation. Two of the most common complications are capsular contracture and implant malposition. Familiarity and comfort with the assessment and management of these complications is necessary for all plastic surgeons. An up-to-date understanding of current devices and techniques may decrease the need to manage future complications from the current cohort of breast augmentation patients.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207