ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Machine Learning to Predict Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Failure: A Bootstrap-Validated Elastic Net Model.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical Burden of Breast Cancer Treatment: Implications of Mastectomy, Breast Conservation, and Reconstruction Choices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplant-based reconstruction failure remains a significant complication following breast reconstruction, with substantial implications for patient outcomes. Reliable preoperative risk prediction tools are lacking.
methodsA retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted, including 381 IBR procedures performed from 2006 to 2023. Reconstruction failure was defined as explantation without immediate replacement within one year. Elastic net regression was used to develop a multivariable model based on age, BMI, smoking status, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, use of expander, and implant plane. Internal bootstrap validation was performed following the 2024 TRIPOD + AI guidelines. Model performance was assessed using AUC, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. A real-time online calculator was deployed for clinical use.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 38.2 ± 27.2 months. The observed IBR failure rate was 5.5% (n = 21). The final model included key predictors such as postoperative radiotherapy, expander use, and an interaction term between age and BMI. Discrimination was strong with an optimism-corrected AUC of 0.856 (95% CI 0.76-0.935). Calibration analysis demonstrated optimal agreement between predicted and observed outcomes, and decision curve analysis confirmed the model's net clinical benefit over default strategies. The model is accessible via an online tool ( https://urls.fr/BIWCeO ).
conclusionsThis study presents a robust, internally validated predictive model for implant loss following IBR. The online calculator suggests real-time, individualized risk estimation, supporting preoperative counseling and surgical decision-making in the future. External validation and clinical implementation studies are warranted to confirm its broader applicability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.