MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026016737 · doi:10.1188/10.onf.469-475

The Sequelae of Anxiety in Breast Cancer: A Human Response to Illness Model

2010· review· en· W2026016737 on OpenAlexafffund
Allison E. Pedersen, Jo‐Ann V. Sawatzky, Thomas F. Hack

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyBreast cancerCancerPathophysiologyHuman breastClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To provide a critical review of the empirical literature on anxiety in women with breast cancer using the physiologic, pathophysiologic, behavior, and experiential perspectives of the Human Response to Illness (HRTI) Model. DATA SOURCES: Research articles, clinical articles, and Internet sources on breast cancer and anxiety. Literature sources included CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO, incorporating English language reports through March 2009. DATA SYNTHESIS: Patients with breast cancer experience fluctuating levels of anxiety throughout their diagnosis and treatment trajectory. Anxiety may influence an individual's response to treatment, treatment decision making, and overall quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Research consistently demonstrates that anxiety in patients with breast cancer can have a negative effect on patient outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The insight gained from exploring anxiety within the context of the four interrelated perspectives of the HRTI model fosters the provision of optimal care for patients suffering with anxiety throughout their breast cancer illness trajectory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207