Machine Learning Demonstrates High Accuracy for Disease Diagnosis and Prognosis in Plastic Surgery
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Machine learning (ML) is a set of models and methods that can detect patterns in vast amounts of data and use this information to perform various kinds of decision-making under uncertain conditions. This review explores the current role of this technology in plastic surgery by outlining the applications in clinical practice, diagnostic and prognostic accuracies, and proposed future direction for clinical applications and research. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1990 to 2020. Any clinical studies (including case reports) which present the diagnostic and prognostic accuracies of machine learning models in the clinical setting of plastic surgery were included. Data collected were clinical indication, model utilised, reported accuracies, and comparison with clinical evaluation. RESULTS: The database identified 1181 articles, of which 51 articles were included in this review. The clinical utility of these algorithms was to assist clinicians in diagnosis prediction (n=22), outcome prediction (n=21) and pre-operative planning (n=8). The mean accuracy is 88.80%, 86.11% and 80.28% respectively. The most commonly used models were neural networks (n=31), support vector machines (n=13), decision trees/random forests (n=10) and logistic regression (n=9). CONCLUSIONS: ML has demonstrated high accuracies in diagnosis and prognostication of burn patients, congenital or acquired facial deformities, and in cosmetic surgery. There are no studies comparing ML to clinician's performance. Future research can be enhanced using larger datasets or utilising data augmentation, employing novel deep learning models, and applying these to other subspecialties of plastic surgery.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it