Insufficient Knowledge of Breast Cancer Risk Factors Among Malaysian Female University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>BACKGROUND:</strong> Despite continuous argument about the efficacy of breast self-examination; it still could be a life-saving technique through inspiring and empowering women to take better control over their body/breast and health.<strong> </strong>This study<strong> </strong>investigated Malaysian female university students’ knowledge about breast cancer risk factors, signs, and symptoms and assessed breast self-examination frequency among students.</p> <p><strong>METHOD:</strong> A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2013 in nine public and private universities in the Klang Valley and Selangor. 842 female students were respondents for the self-administered survey technique. Simple descriptive and inferential statistics were employed for data analysis.</p> <p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> The uptake of breast self-examination (BSE) was less than 50% among the students. Most of students had insufficient knowledge on several breast cancer risk factors.</p> <p><strong>CONCLUSION:</strong> Actions and efforts should be done to increase knowledge of breast cancer through the development of ethnically and traditionally sensitive educational training on BSE and breast cancer literacy.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".