MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376105641 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000010279

Sir Harold Gillies: The Modern Father of Plastic Surgery

2023· article· en· W4376105641 on OpenAlexaff
Max Solish, Janine M. Roller, Toni Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlastic surgerySpecialtyArt historyClassicsSurgeryHistoryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For Gillies, plastic surgery not only involved restoring function but also making the person look normal and sometimes more beautiful than before. He was driven by the idea that the surgeon should be creative, imaginative—in fact, an artist.1 —C.J. Williams Dr. Harold Gillies is widely regarded as the modern father of plastic surgery and his contributions to the specialty were foundational. Gillies was a pioneer of innumerable procedures that continue to be used today, including the tubed pedicle flap and female-to-male gender affirmation surgery.2 Harold Gillies was born on June 17, 1882, in Dunedin, New Zealand.2 He studied medicine at Gonville and Caius College in Cambridge and completed his clinical training in London.2 Although Gillies specialized in ear, nose, and throat surgery, his career path quickly deviated during World War I.2,3 Through his experience with the Red Cross and dentist Auguste Valadier in France, as well as his surgical observership of Hippolyte Morestin, he developed a keen interest in facial reconstructive surgery.2 Gillies brought his experience back to England, opening a facial reconstruction unit in Aldershot in 1915, then his second in 1917 in Sidcup once the first unit became overloaded with war casualties.2 Sidcup became an important teaching base, concentrating highly technical cases with the world’s finest surgeons.2 Based on his key contributions, Dr. Gillies was knighted in 1930.2 Dr. Gillies pushed the limits of plastic surgery through his innovation and development of novel surgical techniques. He pioneered procedures, such as the nasal inlay graft,3 amputated digit autograft,4 fan flap,3 forehead flap variations,3 phalloplasty,2 and temporalis transfer,2 and was an important contributor to the tubed pedicle flap,2 face lift,1 and mammaplasty.1 Throughout his career, Gillies was an avid educator and played a major role in developing multidisciplinary medical teams, involving artists, sculptors, and photographers to assist in case planning and documentation.2 He also worked closely with other physicians, including anesthesiologists Rubens Wade and Ivan Magill, who pioneered crucial advances in surgical anesthesia.2 Beyond his technical skillset, Dr. Gillies was a strong advocate for his patients, even when his surgeries were not yet socially accepted. Most notably, he performed the world’s first phalloplasty against UK legislature, a practice that ultimately advanced the field toward greater inclusivity.1,2,4 To address the extensive facial injuries sustained by soldiers in World War I, Dr. Gilles was a key contributor to developing the technique using pedicled and tubed flaps to restore facial form and function. This facilitated the integration of injured soldiers back into their communities but also set the foundation for more complex reconstructive techniques that became the standard surgical techniques used in gender-affirming procedures, head and neck reconstruction, and breast surgery. Dr. Gillies was a pivotal advocate for multidisciplinary, patient-centered teams, which would only decades later be recognized as the standard of care. He died in 1960,5 but his legacy within the field of plastic surgery will continue to inspire new generations of surgeons. DISCLOSURE The authors declare that their study was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207