Returning to Work After Breast Cancer: A Critical Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer and return to work (RTW) is a global issue affected by many factors. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) can be used to address disease/treatment, person and work related factors that can impact the RTW process for breast cancer survivors. The work environment, treatment and sociodemographic factors can affect the timeliness of RTW. While conventional treatment methods are critical for survival, there are other strategies that may provide comfort and relief that can improve functioning in the workplace. Although the number of studies addressing this is increasing, certain issues such as differences in RTW rates, RTW needs and accountability need further investigation. A thorough understanding of the independent and combined effects of disease/treatment, work and person related factors can assist in the appropriate implementation of RTW strategies for breast cancer survivors. For many breast cancer survivors, returning to work is used as a gauge of healing and control over breast cancer, providing encouragement for the future.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it