MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025143483 · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2012.04.006

Breast reconstruction following mastectomy for invasive breast cancer is strongly influenced by demographic factors in women in Victoria, Australia

2012· article· en· W2025143483 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robin J. Bell, Peter Robinson, P. Fradkin, Max Schwarz, Susan R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash UniversityVictoria UniversityUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsMedicineBreast reconstructionMastectomyLogistic regressionBreast cancerDemographyGynecologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored factors associated with the likelihood of reconstruction after unilateral mastectomy and the wellbeing of women after reconstruction. Data were from a questionnaire completed on average 1.8 years after diagnosis by 1429 women in the BUPA Health and Wellbeing After Breast Cancer Study. Logistic regression was used to model factors associated with reconstruction. The Psychological General Wellbeing Questionnaire was used to assess wellbeing. A total of 25.4% of 366 women who had a unilateral mastectomy had undergone a reconstruction nearly two years after diagnosis. Being younger (p<0.001), educated beyond school (p<0.04), living in the metropolitan area (p<0.001), having private health insurance (p=0.003), not having dependent children (p=0.004) and not having radiotherapy (p<0.001) explained just over 40% of the variation in reconstruction status. There was a modest difference between women who did and did not have a reconstruction in terms of wellbeing. Demographic factors strongly influence the likelihood of reconstruction after mastectomy.

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)0.000
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 score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe BreastSame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207