MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W124724785

The views of ovarian cancer survivors on its cause, prevention, and recurrence.

2001· article· en· W124724785 on OpenAlexaff
Donna E. Stewart, Stephen Duff, Frank S. H. Wong, Cindy Melancon, Angela M. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvarian cancerMedicineCancerCancer recurrenceInternal medicineDiseaseAnxietyGynecologyOncologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

METHODS: Women who had survived ovarian cancer without further treatment, active disease, or recurrence for at least 2 years were surveyed by mail. RESULTS: Two hundred (67.8%) ovarian cancer survivors, who had been recurrence free for a mean of 7.2 +/- 4.9 years, responded. The cause of ovarian cancer was attributed to stress (63.5%), diet (39.0%), genes (36.5%), environment (32.5%), hormones (30.0%), sex life (11.0%), and smoking (9.5%). They attributed their lack of cancer recurrence to positive attitude (82.5%), close medical follow-up (82.0%), healthy lifestyle (69.0%), prayer (68.0%), stress reduction (66.5%), diet (63.0%), and exercise (58.5%). Overall, 45% of women thought their recurrence risk was below average, 28.5% average, 23% above average, and 3.5% reported that they did not know their particular risk. Although 35.5% of women reported that they hardly ever thought of cancer recurrence, 28% thought of it at least monthly, 24.5% at least weekly, and 12% at least daily. Almost half (43.5%) of the women had bad dreams related to their cancer experience, and 25% of these women reported the dreams had a negative effect on their sense of well-being. Over half (62.5%) reported high to extreme anxiety at the time of cancer check-ups, but 47% were not afraid of what their futures held for them. However, 12% were very afraid of dying of ovarian cancer, and 5% were "constantly afraid of dying." Most women reported healthy behaviors with respect to not smoking (95.5%), balanced diet (92.0%), and regular exercise (65.0%). Of note was that 82% took vitamins or other supplements. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers should be aware that the personal beliefs held by ovarian cancer patients and survivors about cancer cause and recurrence prevention may be at variance with scientific evidence. This may assist in framing the ongoing management of patients in personally meaningful ways, which may increase adherence to a healthy lifestyle, engender a sense of control, and improve quality of life.

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

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations42
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207