Reconstructive or cosmetic plastic surgery? Factors influencing the type of practice established by Canadian plastic surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some argue that the specialty of plastic surgery is facing a changing identity. Challenged by factors such as increasing competition in the cosmetic marketplace and decreasing reimbursement for reconstructive procedures, many American plastic surgeons have increasingly adopted cosmetic-focused practices. The present study investigated the currently unknown practice profiles of Canadian plastic surgeons to determine the reconstructive-cosmetic mix, as well as factors that influence practice type to determine whether a similar pattern exists in Canada. METHODS: An anonymous online survey regarding practice profiles was distributed to all 352 Canadian plastic surgeons with e-mail accounts registered with the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons and/or the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 34% (120 responses), of which 75% of respondents currently had a reconstructive practice and 25% had a cosmetic practice. Reconstructive surgeons had more educational debt following their training, spent more time on emergency call, academics and teaching and, when deciding which type of practice to establish, were more influenced by academic opportunities and less influenced by financial and nonfinancial metrics. Similarities between the groups included hours worked per week and academic achievements. CONCLUSIONS: The field of reconstructive plastic surgery appears to be thriving in Canada. While a transition from reconstructive to cosmetic practice is common, compared with their American colleagues, a greater proportion of Canadian plastic surgeons maintain reconstructive practices. Differences between reconstructive and cosmetic plastic surgeons are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".