Three-dimensional simulation of aesthetic outcome from breast-conserving surgery compared with viewing photographs or standard care: randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Over half of women with surgically managed breast cancer in the UK undergo breast-conserving treatment (BCT). While photographs are shown prior to reconstructive surgery or complex oncoplastic procedures, standard practice prior to breast conservation is to simply describe the likely aesthetic changes. Patients have expressed the desire for more personalized information about likely appearance after surgery. The hypothesis was that viewing a three-dimensional (3D) simulation improves patients' confidence in knowing their likely aesthetic outcome after surgery. METHODS: A randomized, controlled trial of 117 women planning unilateral BCT was undertaken. The randomization was three-way: standard of care (verbal description alone, control group), viewing two-dimensional (2D) photographs, or viewing a 3D simulation before surgery. The primary endpoint was the comparison between groups' median answer on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for the question administered before surgery: 'How confident are you that you know how your breasts are likely to look after treatment?' RESULTS: The median VAS in the control group was 5.2 (i.q.r. 2.6-7.8); 8.0 (i.q.r. 5.7-8.7) for 2D photography, and 8.9 (i.q.r. 8.2-9.5) for 3D simulation. There was a significant difference between groups (P < 0.010) with post-hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrating a statistically significant difference between 3D simulation and both standard care and viewing 2D photographs (P < 0.010 and P = 0.012, respectively). CONCLUSION: This RCT has demonstrated that women who viewed an individualized 3D simulation of likely aesthetic outcome for BCT were more confident going into surgery than those who received standard care or who were shown 2D photographs of other women. The impact on longer-term satisfaction with outcome remains to be determined.Registration number: NCT03250260 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".