Partner Abandonment of Women with Breast Cancer: <i>Myth or Reality?</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to determine the existing evidence related to marital breakdown after a breast cancer diagnosis by reviewing studies that highlight two current belief models: the lay belief model and the clinical belief model. OVERVIEW: The small number of studies conducted on this topic since 1988 revealed no data to confirm the lay belief model, which proposes that women with breast cancer are abandoned by their partners. The evidence appears to support the clinical belief model that the majority of marital relationships remain stable after breast cancer and that breakdown is most likely in those relationships with pre-existing difficulties. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review indicates that it may be important for clinicians to routinely ask about the quality of the marital relationship as part of the initial assessment, because it appears that this may be a main predictor of post-diagnosis marital adjustment. In addition, greater dissemination of the findings of this review through the media and through cancer organizations is needed to more accurately reflect the experience of couples facing breast cancer and, thus, to begin to change the public perception of partner desertion after breast cancer. This could help both women with breast cancer and women from the general population who may one day confront a breast cancer diagnosis.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it