MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast Cancer and Sexuality: Multi-modal Treatment Options (CME)

2011· review· en· W1915829724 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Krychman, Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerHuman sexualityMedicinePsychosocialQuality of life (healthcare)GynecologySexual dysfunctionPopulationSurvivorship curveCancerInternal medicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207