MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990860958 · doi:10.1300/j015v29n01_05

Chemically-Induced Menopause and the Sexual Functioning of Breast Cancer Survivors

2006· article· en· W1990860958 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon Archibald, Suzanne Lemieux, E. Sandra Byers, Karen Tamlyn, Jane Worth

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen & Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMenopauseTamoxifenThematic analysisClinical psychologyMedicinePsychologyGynecologyStressorGrounded theorySexual functioningHuman sexualityQualitative researchCancerOncologySexual dysfunctionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most premenopausal women diagnosed with breast cancer receive adjuvant chemotherapy or tamoxifen. These treatments help to prevent the recurrence of breast cancer but have potentially permanent menopausal side-effects, termed chemically-induced menopause (CIM). Following a diagnosis of breast cancer and subsequent treatment, CIM and its associated side-effects may represent additional stressors for women. Thirty women participated in interviews regarding the impact of CIM on their sexual functioning. Participants were also asked about the emotional impact of these sexual changes. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic analysis technique that was informed by the constant comparison method of grounded theory. Themes emerged regarding women's experiences of: (a) the sexual changes following treatment; (b) the emotional impact of sexual changes; and, (c) moderators of the negative impact of these sexual changes. Implications are discussed with regard to counseling and current health care practices

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations97
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen & TherapySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207