Effect of Media on Facial Plastic Surgery in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the effect of social media, TV shows, plastic surgeons' self-advertisement, and before-and-after cosmetic surgery photos of patients who actually visited the clinic to seek a consultation or intervention. Methods This is a cross-sectional study; institutional review board approval was granted in 2018. This study was conducted among patients attending cosmetic clinics at King Abdulaziz University Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire is composed of socio-demographic data and about the reason for the trending of plastic surgeries. Results Three hundred and ninety-nine patients participated in the study. Of all participants, 60.4% agreed on the impact of the surgeon's self-advertisement in the trending of plastic surgeries; 53.4% said yes to cosmetic television programs having an effect on the trend of plastic surgeries; 65.7% of the participants answered yes to before-and-after pictures of social media having an effect on the trend of cosmetic procedures; and 54.1% of the participants answered yes to wanting to look better in selfies as a reason for the rise of cosmetic surgery. Conclusion The results of this study have shown that the majority of patients visiting plastic surgery clinics were positively affected, but not exclusively, by media coverage of cosmetic surgery results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".