Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines and contrasts the effect of risk disclosure on risk acceptance and perceived changes in quality of life (QoL) among individuals with and without facial disfigurement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Psychological distress has been previously shown to alter patients' perception of certain treatments. Due to the grave risks and complications of FT, it is important to understand whether the psychological trauma associated with facial disfigurement alters their perception of FT and its associated risks. METHODS: Participants with and without facial disfigurement were recruited to complete a questionnaire about their perceived QoL, sense of identity, and willingness to proceed with FT in the context of 3 different hypothetical scenarios involving facial disfiguration. RESULTS: Four hundred nine nonfacially disfigured and 74 facially disfigured participants were included. When both healthy and facially disfigured individuals were presented with the risks and benefits of a FT, they both perceived their QoL to be as low, or significantly lower, than if they had severe facial disfigurement. Furthermore, presenting the risks of FT significantly altered the decision making and risk acceptance of healthy individuals with no facial disfigurement. However, risk disclosure did not affect the decision making among facially disfigured individuals. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that presenting the complication profile of FT decreases risk acceptance of FT in healthy individuals but has no significant effects on facially disfigured individuals. The psychological impact of facial disfigurement and its influence on accepting the significant risks of FT should be considered and warrants further investigation.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".