MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160359275 · doi:10.1177/22925503211011947

Impact of Before and After Photographs on Parents of Children With Cleft Lip

2021· article· en· W3160359275 on OpenAlexaff
Mranali Dengre, Christopher R. Forrest, Emily S. Ho

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)Social mediaPsychologyMedicineQualitative researchPsychiatrySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cleft lip with or without palate (CL/P) is a common facial deformity requiring surgical intervention whose aesthetic outcomes are typically represented by Before and After Photographs (BAPhotos). With the growing presence of social media, there are concerns about the role of BAPhotos in plastic surgery and their impact on patient’s expectations. Methods: A retrospective analysis of quality assurance survey and interview data was conducted to explore the impact of BAPhotos on parents and their expectations in the context of CL/P. Results: Thirty-five parents were interviewed regarding use of BAPhotos; 91% viewed BAPhotos on the following platforms: Google (n = 26), Facebook (n = 8), Instagram (n = 4), YouTube (n = 4), Snapchat (n = 1), and Other (n = 11). Half of the parents believed that BAPhotos influenced their treatment expectations and these parents were not less satisfied with their child’s surgical outcome than those who did not perceive being influenced (Mann-Whitney U = 124.5, P = .05). A higher proportion of parents who viewed BAPhotos on social platforms felt that their treatment expectations were influenced by BAPhotos (χ 2 , X (df = 1) = 4.49, P = .03). Thematic analysis revealed that parents’ emotional reaction to BAPhotos was shaped by the context of the photos; photos on social platforms that include patient stories (ie, Instagram, Facebook) were more often sources of emotional support. Conclusion: This study furthers our understanding of the impact BAPhotos have on parents of children with CL/P and areas of education regarding the dissemination of BAPhotos which have the potential to positively impact viewing of these photos.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic SurgerySame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207