P05.19. Outcomes in breast cancer treatment decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case-control study involved telephone interviews at baseline, and completion of spirituality, self-efficacy, and control over treatment DM questionnaires at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. Forty cases and 40 controls with stage 0-III breast cancer were matched by age, stage of illness, and province. Differences between pairs at each time point, adjusted for the time since diagnosis, were estimated using GEE linear regression models. Seventy-five percent were 40-59 years old, and 80% diagnosed at stage I or II. Cases declined hormone therapy (67%), radiation (65%) and chemotherapy (63%), and used CAM therapies including diet changes (98%), mind-body practices (88%), and herbs (85%). Outcome measures are grouped as follows: (1) general health and wellbeing (Distress Thermometer (DT), Profile of Mood States (POMS); (2) impact of cancer on well-being (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast (FACT-B); and (3) measures of traits, such as personality and beliefs (Multidimensional Health Locus of Control, Spiritual Involvement and Beliefs Scale-Revised (SIBS-R), Control Preferences Scale (CPS), and Generalized Self-Efficacy. No significant differences in the DT (p>0.141) and POMS, except for the anger (p<0.001) and vigor (p=0.001) scales, were found. Cases exhibited higher anger and vigor scores. There were no differences between groups on the FACT-B subscales at any time point. Measures of traits demonstrated differences in spirituality (p<0.001) and control preferences in DM (p<0.001), but not self-efficacy (p=0.208). This study highlights the need for cancer specialists to assess individual needs, provide individualized care, and be open to a patient population with a wide range of beliefs.
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) | 0.003 | 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".