ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Does Patient History Influence Capsular Contracture? An Exploratory Analysis with Machine Learning.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCapsular contracture (CC) is a frequent and distressing complication of breast augmentation and reconstruction. Although numerous patient-, surgical-, and implant-related risk factors have been proposed, reliable population-level predictors remain inconsistent across studies. This study evaluates whether administrative medical history, as encoded by ICD and CPT codes, contains sufficient predictive signal to identify patients at risk for CC using machine learning.
methodsPatients were queried from the Merative
resultsA total of 112,489 patients were included, and the rate of capsular contracture was 9.55%. In total, 4,825 common conditions and procedures were included as features in the model. The random forest's error rate was 9.54%. Prior CC was the most important variable in the model. When removed, model accuracy decreased by 0.0011% (p <0.001). Removing prior irradiation as a feature decreased model accuracy by 0.00014% (p < 0.001). In line with the previous literature, prior CC (OR = 2.47, p <0.001) and irradiation (OR = 1.16, p <0.001) were significantly associated with CC development in a multivariable logistic regression model.
conclusionsAdministrative medical history alone demonstrated limited predictive utility for CC development. Although established associations such as prior CC and irradiation were confirmed, their incremental contribution to predictive performance was negligible. These associations do not meaningfully enhance a clinician's ability to reliably predict which patients are at increased risk for CC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: 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.