Perspectives of women about external breast prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As many as 90% of women who have undergone mastectomy or lumpectomy for breast cancer surgery will choose to wear a breast prosthesis. To date, there has been little systematic exploration of experiences and preferences related to wearing external breast prostheses, especially with new products. For this qualitative descriptive study, 24 women were interviewed regarding their perspectives about the conventional breast prosthesis and 19 about their perspectives regarding a newly available custom-designed breast prosthesis. Women spoke about difficulties obtaining information regarding available breast prostheses options; the awkwardness of being measured and fitted for a prosthesis, especially with seemingly untrained staff; challenges in wearing an external prosthesis; and how a prosthesis can foster increased confidence, enhanced body image and self-esteem, and a sense of normalcy. All recommended that women must make an individual decision about wearing a breast prosthesis and emphasized how important it is to have information about options early in the cancer journey. The study findings can guide oncology nurses in educating women about breast prostheses.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".