Weight gain in breast cancer survivors: prevalence, pattern and health consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight gain is a common and persistent problem for many breast cancer survivors and is associated with adverse health consequences. A comprehensive review of the English language literature was conducted to investigate the frequency, magnitude and pattern of weight gain among breast cancer survivors, to identify factors that are associated with these changes and to review the clinical significance of weight gain on disease free survival and overall health. While there appears to be a general trend toward a reduction in the magnitude of weight gain in recent years, as many as 50-96% of women experience weight gain during treatment and many, including some women who remain weight stable during treatment, report progressive weight gain in the months and years after diagnosis. Weight gain is more common in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, especially for women receiving longer duration treatments and seems to be especially pronounced in premenopausal women. With or without weight gain, unfavourable changes in body composition including fat gain and loss of lean tissue are prevalent. This unique pattern of weight gain and change in body composition is distressing for most women, poses significant risk for the development of co-morbid conditions and may impact on long term disease-free survival.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".