First use of Braxon® acellular dermal matrix for complex revision aesthetic breast surgery—revision augmentation mastopexy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have ushered in a paradigm shift in prosthetic breast reconstruction; however, there has hitherto been no reported use of Braxon® ADM in aesthetic breast surgery. Here, we describe the case of a 42-year-old woman who presented for revision of her bilateral aesthetic augmentation-mastopexy following multiple revision surgeries. The predominant concerns were persistent pain, implant malposition and a wide intermammary distance. Her predicament was worsened by inability to tolerate monopolar diathermy owing to a spinal stimulator-the least invasive operation was sought and Braxon® ADM met this criterion. The procedure was a success, and she remains symptom-free, with soft breasts and stable implant positions. Braxon® ADM, with its preformed shape, total implant-wrapping design and easy suture fixation, lends itself to easy use in cosmetic breast surgery. Its role in cosmetic breast surgery has yet to be established, but this case marks the beginning of this endeavor.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".