Complications and Quality of Life following Gynecomastia Correction in Adolescents and Young Men.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent adolescent gynecomastia negatively affects health-related quality of life. Surgery results in psychosocial improvements, but the effects of postoperative complications on health-related quality of life are unknown. The authors examined whether complications following adolescent gynecomastia surgery impact postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS: Patients aged 12 to 21 years who underwent surgical correction of unilateral/bilateral gynecomastia between 2007 and 2019 were enrolled (n = 145). Relevant demographic and clinical data were obtained from medical records. Fifty-one patients completed the following surveys preoperatively, and at 6 months and 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 years postoperatively: 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (Version 2), Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the 26-item Eating Attitudes Test. RESULTS: Within a median period of 8.6 months, 36 percent of breasts experienced at least one complication. The most common were residual tissue (12.6 percent), contour irregularities (9.2 percent), and hematomas (7.8 percent). Patients reported significant postoperative improvements in self-esteem and in seven health-related quality-of-life domains (Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, Bodily Pain, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional, and Mental Health) at a median of 33.3 months. Postoperative survey scores did not vary by grade or procedure, or largely by body mass index category or complication status. However, patients aged younger than 17 years at surgery scored significantly higher than older patients in the Short-Form Health Survey Vitality and Mental Health domains postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Health-related quality-of-life improvements are achievable in adolescents through surgical correction of persistent gynecomastia. Postoperatively, patients largely experienced similar health-related quality-of-life gains irrespective of complication status, grade, surgical technique, or body mass index category. Minor postcorrection complications are but do not appear to limit postoperative health-related quality-of-life benefits.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".