MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187399939 · doi:10.1093/bjs/znab217

Three-dimensional simulation of aesthetic outcome from breast-conserving surgery compared with viewing photographs or standard care: randomized clinical trial

2021· article· en· W3187399939 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amy Godden, Aikaterini Micha, Lisa Wolf, Carol Pitches, Peter Barry, Aadil Khan, Katherine Krupa, Anna M. Kirby, Jennifer Rusby

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchPink Ribbon FoundationRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustNiilo Helanderin SäätiöInstitute of Cancer ResearchCancer Research UKNational Institute on Handicapped Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialVisual analogue scaleOncoplastic SurgeryBreast surgeryClinical endpointRandomizationConfidence intervalClinical trialSurgeryBreast cancerCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of surgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207