MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Suction assisted surgical extraction of subcutaneous lipoma

2024· article· en· W4401171103 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lata Bhoir, Neha D. Sharma, Vishal M. Pishe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research in Medical Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCannulaSurgeryScarsLiposuctionLipomaSuctionProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Lipomas are the most common benign mesenchymal tumours in the body. Patients seek their removal due to disfigurement, discomfort or cancerphobia. Historically, open surgical removal was the mainstay of their treatment but striving for less scarring, liposuction is the only new FDA approved alternative. Methods: 56 patients with subcutaneous lipoma of size 3 cm - 10 cm and fulfilling eligibility criteria were selected for this hospital based prospective cohort study after informed consent and Institutional Ethical Committee approval from June 2016 to July 2018. 3 mm irrigation cannula, 5 mm suction cannula, Suction holding tool and Luer lock syringe were used. Lipoma infiltrated with modified Klein solution. Lipoma suctioned out & through the same port, capsule in the cavity was pulled out employing long forceps. Results observed with regards to operative time, post-operative scars, post operative pain and recurrence. Result: A total of 56 patients were enrolled, operated, and observed. Mean duration of lipoma removal surgery was 47.32 minutes. 67.85% patients had pain score 1 after 2 hours of surgery. 100% of patients had healthy scars. 80.4% patients had 0 Vancouver Scarscore after 6 month follow up and only 1 patient had recurrence in 5 months. Conclusions: Our study showed good results in view of postoperative pain and quality of scar. Use of 5 mm cannula gave visually negligible scar with less than 2% recurrence rate. Even though the mean duration of surgery was 47 mins which is more compared to open excision, the good cosmetic result with minimal to no scar prevails over it.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Case reportlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Case reporthigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research in Medical SciencesSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207