MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2474838275 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000001861

A Systematic Review of Comparison of Autologous, Allogeneic, and Synthetic Augmentation Grafts in Nipple Reconstruction

2015· review· en· W2474838275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sebastian Winocour, Anshuman Saksena, Christine Oh, Peter Wu, Alexis Laungani, Heather L. Baltzer, Michel Saint-Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryComplicationProjection (relational algebra)MEDLINERetrospective cohort studyPatient satisfactionEvidence-based medicineAlgorithmMathematicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many techniques have been described for nipple reconstruction, with the principal limitation being excessive loss of projection. The ideal reconstructed nipple provides sustained projection, the fewest complications, and high levels of patient satisfaction. A variety of materials are available for projection augmentation, including autologous, allogeneic, and synthetic materials. To date, there has been no systematic review to study the efficacy, projection, and complication rates of different materials used in nipple reconstruction. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases were searched, from inception to August of 2014, to identify literature reporting on outcomes of autologous, allogeneic, and synthetic grafts in nipple reconstruction. Retrospective and prospective studies with controlled and uncontrolled conditions were included. Studies reporting the use of autologous flap techniques without grafts and articles lacking postoperative outcomes were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. After evidence review, one study represented two of nine stars on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, two studies represented three stars, six studies represented four stars, seven studies represented five stars, 11 studies represented six stars, and four studies represented seven stars. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review revealed heterogeneity in the type of material used within each category and inconsistent methodology used in outcomes assessment in nipple reconstruction. Overall, the quality of evidence is low. Synthetic materials have higher complication rates and allogeneic grafts have nipple projection comparable to that of autologous grafts. Further investigation with high-level evidence is necessary to determine the optimal material for nipple reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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