MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1661004625 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n1p277

Insufficient Knowledge of Breast Cancer Risk Factors Among Malaysian Female University Students

2015· article· en· W1661004625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asnarulkhadi Abu Samah, Maryam Ahmadian, Latiffah Abdul Latiff

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Putra Malaysia
KeywordsBreast cancerBreast self-examinationMedicineDescriptive statisticsFamily medicineHealth educationPsychologyGynecologyGerontologyCancerPublic healthNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: 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. This study investigated Malaysian female university students' knowledge about breast cancer risk factors, signs, and symptoms and assessed breast self-examination frequency among students. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207