MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234360562 · doi:10.1177/229255031502300210

Mastopexy for breast ptosis: Utility outcomes of population preferences

2015· article· en· W4234360562 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMastopexyPtosisMedicinePopulationSurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Breast ptosis can occur with aging, and after weight loss and breastfeeding. Mastopexy is a procedure used to modify the size, contour and elevation of sagging breasts without changing breast volume. To gain more knowledge on the health burden of living with breast ptosis requiring mastectomy, validated measures can be used to compare it with other health states. Objective To quantify the health state utility assessment of individuals living with breast ptosis who could benefit from a mastopexy procedure; and to determine whether utility scores vary according to participant demographics. Methods Utility assessments using a visual analogue scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) methods were used to obtain utility scores for breast ptosis, monocular blindness and binocular blindness from a sample of the general population and medical students. Linear regression and the Student's t test were used for statistical analysis; P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results Mean (± SD) measures for breast ptosis in the 107 volunteers (VAS: 0.80±0.14; TTO: 0.87±0.18; SG: 0.90±0.14) were significantly different (P<0.0001) from the corresponding measures for monocular blindness and binocular blindness. When compared with a sample of the general population, having a medical education demonstrated a statistically significant difference in being less likely to trade years of life and less likely to gamble risk of a procedure such as a mastopexy. Race and sex were not statistically significant independent predictors of risk acceptance. Discussion For the first time, the burden of living with breast ptosis requiring surgical intervention was determined using validated metrics (ie, VAS, TTO and SG). The health burden of living with breast ptosis was found to be comparable with that of breast hypertrophy, unilateral mastectomy, bilateral mastectomy, and cleft lip and palate. Furthermore, breast ptosis was considered to be closer to ‘perfect health’ than monocular blindness, binocular blindness, facial disfigurement requiring face transplantation surgery, unilateral facial paralysis and severe lower extremity lymphedema. Conclusions Quantifying the health burden of living with breast ptosis requiring mastopexy indicated that is comparable with other breast-related conditions (breast hypertrophy and bilateral mastectomy). Numerical values have been assigned to this health state (VAS: 0.80±0.14; TTO: 0.87±0.18; and SG: 0.90±0.14), which can be used to form comparisons with the health burden of living with other disease states.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.204 · 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