Total Breast Reconstruction with Fat Grafting Combined with Internal Tissue Expansion
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Breast reconstruction procedures are currently performed as standard practice and are an integral part of breast cancer treatment. The advantages and disadvantages of particular types of reconstruction are well known. Most of them require the woman to accept a different consistency of the reconstructed breast, as is the case with implants, or to have extra scarring in the donor site and a cutaneous island with a different texture in the recipient site, as is the case with TRAM, DIEP, and other flaps. This article presents the concept of breast reconstruction with fat grafting combined with internal tissue expansion. A 44-year-old woman after a right mastectomy for invasive carcinoma T1c, N0 (IIB) was presented. After unsatisfactory treatment with fat grafting supported by BRAVA system, she was qualified for breast reconstruction with fat grafting combined with tissue expansion. An anatomic 350 cm 3 breast expander with an integrated port was implanted. It was filled with saline solution up to volume of 380 ml. Then, 7 fat grafting procedures combined with gradual emptying of the expander were performed. The 50/70 principle was used, that is, 50 ml of physiological saline was removed from the expander and 70 ml of fat was injected into the subcutaneous tissue over the expander. Finally, the expander was removed and a satisfactory volume and completely natural consistency of the breast was obtained. Breast reconstruction with fat grafting combined with tissue expansion is a promising method of total breast reconstruction after mastectomy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it