Gynecomastia Classification for Surgical Management: A Systematic Review and Novel Classification System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gynecomastia is a common deformity of the male breast, where certain cases warrant surgical management. There are several surgical options, which vary depending on the breast characteristics. To guide surgical management, several classification systems for gynecomastia have been proposed. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to (1) identify all classification systems for the surgical management of gynecomastia, and (2) determine the adequacy of these classification systems to appropriately categorize the condition for surgical decision-making. RESULTS: The search yielded 1012 articles, and 11 articles were included in the review. Eleven classification systems in total were ascertained, and a total of 10 unique features were identified: (1) breast size, (2) skin redundancy, (3) breast ptosis, (4) tissue predominance, (5) upper abdominal laxity, (6) breast tuberosity, (7) nipple malposition, (8) chest shape, (9) absence of sternal notch, and (10) breast skin elasticity. On average, classification systems included two or three of these features. Breast size and ptosis were the most commonly included features. CONCLUSIONS: Based on their review of the current classification systems, the authors believe the ideal classification system should be universal and cater to all causes of gynecomastia; be surgically useful and easy to use; and should include a comprehensive set of clinically appropriate patient-related features, such as breast size, breast ptosis, tissue predominance, and skin redundancy. None of the current classification systems appears to fulfill these criteria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".