MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590106102 · doi:10.1177/2513826x17693821

The Complications of Polyacrylamide Hydrogel Augmentation Mammoplasty

2017· article· en· W2590106102 on OpenAlex
Jessica Winter, Sarah Shiga, Avinash Islur

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery Case Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast augmentationSurgeryAugmentation MammoplastyMammoplastyDebridement (dental)Breast reconstructionPopulationBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAAG) as an injectable filler for breast augmentation has fallen out of popularity since its first use in the 1980s but has produced an increasing patient population presenting with complications related to PAAG injections. Polyacrylamide hydrogel use was popularized most notably in China, Russia, and Iran. However, given immigration trends and medical tourism, PAAG-related complications have become increasingly more common in North America. These complications can be difficult to treat, often necessitating complex surgery that includes gel removal, debridement procedures, and often breast reconstruction. Approaches to surgical treatment and subsequent breast reconstruction are not universally defined primarily because of the limited knowledge about this group of patients. This article presents the option of autologous free flap reconstruction for a patient with extensive muscular involvement and aims to summarize complications and risks associated with PAAG through case report and a review of the literature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.282 · 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