MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590527826 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003051

Predicting Complications in Immediate Alloplastic Breast Reconstruction: How Useful Is the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator?

2017· article· en· W2590527826 on OpenAlexaff
Anne C. O’Neill, Blake Murphy, Shaghayegh Bagher, Saad Al Qahtani, Stefan O.P. Hofer, Toni Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast reconstructionCalculatorSurgeryBreast surgeryQuality assuranceBrier scoreCohortGeneral surgeryBreast cancerMedical physicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Complications following immediate breast reconstruction can have significant consequences for the delivery of postoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Identifying patients at higher risk of complications would ensure that immediate breast reconstruction does not compromise oncologic treatment. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator is an online tool in the public domain that offers individualized preoperative risk prediction for a wide range of surgical procedures, including alloplastic breast reconstruction. This study evaluates the usefulness of this tool in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expanders at a single institution. METHODS: Details of 278 patients who underwent immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expander placement were entered into the calculator to determine the predicted complication rate. This was compared to the rate of observed complications on chart review. The predictive model was evaluated for calibration and discrimination using the statistical measures used in the original development of the calculator. RESULTS: The predicted rate of complications (5.2 percent) was significantly lower that the observed rate (16.2 percent; p < 0.01). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test confirmed lack of fit of the model. The C statistic was 0.62 and the Brier score was 0.173, indicating that the model had poor predictive power and could not discriminate between those who were at risk for complications and those who were not. CONCLUSIONS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program universal Surgical Risk Calculator underestimated the proportion of patients that would develop complications in this cohort. In addition, it was unable to effectively identify individual patients at increased risk, suggesting that this tool would not make a useful contribution to preoperative decision-making in this patient group.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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