MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931440229 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.7701700

How to Avoid Pseudoptosis after Lifting and Breast Reduction Mammaplasties

2023· article· en· W6931440229 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

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering and Materials Science Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast reductionBreast tissueComplicationMammaplastyWeaknessBreast surgeryBlood supply

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pseudoptosis or “bottoming-out” is a common complication following breast reduction. It is secondary to five causal phenomena: improper determination of nipple placement, dissociation of the nipple from the gland, dissociation between different parcels of a reconstituted breast, improper evaluation of the skin to be resected and weakness of the inferior dermal arch. The total posterior pedicle breast reduction technique was described by Richard Moufarrege in 1982. It consists of dissecting the skin away from the breast tissue offering free access to all breast quadrants. This technique is known for its robust blood supply to the nipple areolar complex, the preservation of the nipple areolar complex sensation, and for the conservation of the breastfeeding function. In this article, we also elucidate the reasons why the Moufarrege Total Posterior Pedicle breast reduction technique has a lowest rate of postoperative pseudoptosis.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.178 · 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