Breast Cancer and Sexuality: Multi-modal Treatment Options (CME)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sexual consequences of breast cancer and its treatments are well known and previously reviewed. Alterations in body image, with or without breast reconstruction, changes in sexual self-esteem and self-efficacy, vulvovaginal atrophy as a result of chemotherapy and/or adjuvant hormone therapy, and loss of libido secondary to dyspareunia and body image issues are common in survivors of breast cancer. Medications that are prescribed for long-term use including those in the class of aromatase inhibitors can have far-reaching implications on quality of life by contributing to vulvar and vaginal atrophic changes. While this is an important issue, there are few widely accepted treatments that have been evaluated for efficacy and safety for these sexual challenges in the breast cancer population. However, progress is being made in finding new and innovative solutions for many of the sexual problems faced by breast cancer survivors and their partners. Many institutions are now compelled to address survivorship concerns and addressing sexuality and intimacy are paramount issues in survivorship care. In this article, we present the evidence for the multimodal approach to the management of sexuality concerns in the breast cancer survivor. Pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and psychosocial interventions will be reviewed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".