Dissemination and Implementation Science in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: Perfecting, Protecting, and Promoting the Innovation That Defines Our Specialty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Plastic and reconstructive surgery has an illustrious history of innovation. The advancement, if not the survival, of the specialty depends on the continual development and improvement of procedures, practices, and technologies. It follows that the safe adoption of innovation into clinical practice is also paramount. Traditionally, adoption has relied on the diffusion of new knowledge, which is a consistent but slow and passive process. The emerging field of dissemination and implementation science promises to expedite the spread and adoption of evidence-based interventions into clinical practice. The field is increasingly recognized as an important function of academia and is a growing priority for major health-related funding institutions. The authors discuss the contemporary challenges of the safe implementation and dissemination of new innovations in plastic and reconstructive surgery, and call on their colleagues to engage in this growing field of dissemination and implementation science.
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 | 0.141 | 0.289 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".