Measuring quality of life in women undergoing surgery for breast hypertrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to describe the outcomes associated with reduction mammaplasty in terms of physical parameters and health-related quality of life. A prospective cohort study was designed and included women undergoing bilateral breast reduction surgery at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, who consented to participate. Women were evaluated preoperatively for symptoms, physical parameters, quality of life (Short Form [SF]-36 and Multidimensional Body Self Relations Questionnaire [MBSRQ]) and general demographic characteristics that were identified as potential confounders. Postoperatively, women were re-evaluated at six months for symptoms, physical parameters and quality of life. A total of 74 women were entered in the study. Their average age was 32.3 years, and the mean mass of resected volume per breast was 630 g. There was a statistically significant improvement in symptoms six months after surgery (P<0.05). There was also a statistically significant improvement in the physical component summary scale of the SF-36 and several additional subscales: bodily pain, physical functioning, role-physical, and vitality. The MBSRQ subscale of appearance evaluation was significantly increased (2.69 compared with 3.12, P=0.000), whereas the appearance orientation subscale was unchanged. The amount of tissue removed did not appear to correlate with the change in physical symptoms or health-related quality of life resulting from the surgery. This study showed significant improvement in physical and psychological aspects of health-related quality of life in women undergoing reduction mammaplasty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".