MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921682254 · doi:10.1177/2513826x19828790

Capsular Flap for Implant Coverage in Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in Women With Previous Breast Augmentation

2019· article· en· W2921682254 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miguel Sabino Neto, Luíz Henrique Gebrim

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery Case Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMastectomyBreast cancerBreast reconstructionSurgeryImplantBreast augmentationSiliconeIncidence (geometry)CancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increased incidence of breast cancer has been observed in women, including in those with silicone breast implants. We describe here the use of a flap made of fibrous capsule to complete the coverage of breast implants in patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction, who previously had undergone breast augmentation with silicone implants. All patients underwent ipsilateral therapeutic mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer risk reduction and breast symmetrization. The capsular flap was successfully used in 16 patients. No postoperative complications occurred. This is a simple and safe technique and an additional option for this procedure.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic Surgery Case StudiesSame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207