ArticlePloS one2026
Development and validation of a photogrammetry-based preoperative method (BREAST-E) for quantitative breast morphometric analysis and volume estimation of breast in reconstructive surgery.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe demand for reproducible, reliable, and cost-effective tools regarding preoperative breast surgery planning is significant in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to limited advanced imaging access, insufficient standardisation, and high cost. This study developed the BREAST-E technique for accurate and standardised breast volume analysis. METHODOLOGY: A photogrammetry method assessed four ptosis levels: (i) no-ptosis, (ii) mild, [Watterson PA, et al. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 1995;95:1185-94] moderate, and (iv) severe. Key parameters included marker counts (20, 40, and 60), photo angles (10°, 20°, and 30°), and offset adjustments (-0.01, 0, and +0.01). Two-dimensional (2D) images were converted into 3D models via Photomodeler for volume estimation. Clinical validation involved 12 patients (13 breasts) undergoing mastectomy, comparing estimated breast volumes to mastectomy specimens. The primary endpoint was accuracy of volume estimation compared with mastectomy specimen volume, while secondary endpoints included reliability, agreement, and workflow feasibility.
resultsThe BREAST-E technique yielded promising accuracy [Pearson correlation coefficient (R) = 0.899 and mean absolute error (MAE) = 98.12 mL] and encouraging reliability (ICC = 0.995-0.996) across ptosis levels. Bland-Altman analysis indicated negligible bias, while Cronbach's alpha (reaching 0.994) demonstrated robust internal consistency. Clinical validation also implied strong performance (R = 0.789, MAE = 104.69 mL, and mean error = -27.00 mL). Consequently, no-ptosis presented the highest reliability (ICC = 0.81 and Cronbach's alpha = 0.92) with minimal bias, whereas moderate and severe ptosis levels demonstrated greater variability.
conclusionThis study successfully indicated that a reproducible, accessible, and cost-effective method for analysing breast volume was accomplished through the proposed BREAST-E technique for LMICs.
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.