MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016475292 · doi:10.1177/2513826x19898821

Life-Saving Silicone Breast Implant After Firearm Injury: Case Report and Treatment Recommendations

2020· article· en· W3016475292 on OpenAlex
Giancarlo McEvenue, Anastasia Oikonomou, Noah Ditkofsky, Joan E. Lipa

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery Case Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast implantImplantMedicineSiliconeSurgeryComputed tomographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast augmentation with silicone implants is one of the most commonly performed operations by plastic surgeons. Here, we report a case of a 30-year-old female patient with a ballistic injury to bilateral breast implants, where the silicone implant was likely responsible for deflecting the bullets trajectory and saving the women’s life. Ballistics analysis of bullet trajectory was performed with high-resolution computed tomography scan analysis. Operative management was implant removal, pocket irrigation, and a short course of antibiotics. A literature review was performed on all previously published breast implant–related firearm injuries. The authors advise operative management with implant removal and delay of replantation for minimum 6 months’ time.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.245 · 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