Women’s experiences with ovarian cancer: Reflections on being diagnosed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe the perspectives of women living with ovarian cancer about their experiences with diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care. A convenience sample of 18 women was interviewed using an open-ended interview guide. This paper will focus on their perspectives during the peri-diagnostic period. Most of the women in this study experienced changes in their bodies--bloating, weight gain around their middles, indigestion, bowel changes, and abdominal pain. The vagueness of the symptoms and lack of awareness by the women and, in the women's opinion, health care professionals caused delays in diagnosis and initial investigations of other body systems. The symptoms were often dismissed by the women as being related to normal body changes such as childbirth, menopause, or stress responses. It was often not until the women's symptoms became severe or included pain that referrals were made to relevant specialists. At this point, many of the women were physically and emotionally spent, leaving them vulnerable and in a weakened state for confronting the diagnosis and coping with the difficult course of treatment. Clearly, the subtle, nebulous nature of the symptoms confounded the diagnosis of ovarian cancer for these women, resulting in patient delays and physician delays.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".