Supportive Care Needs After Gynecologic Cancer: Where Does Sexual Health Fit in?
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
DESIGN: Descriptive, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Follow-up clinic of a gynecologic oncology program in a regional cancer center. SAMPLE: 113 women treated for gynecologic cancer. METHODS: Data were collected using standardized instruments and analyzed through descriptive and correlation statistics. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Supportive care needs, sexual health needs, vaginal changes, desire for help, and socio-demographic and medical factors. FINDINGS: Forty percent of the sample was worried about the status of their sex life and many wished to meet one-on-one with a health professional or to receive written information. Younger age, premenopausal status at diagnosis, and lower sexual satisfaction and more vaginal changes after treatment were associated with greater sexual health needs and desire for help. CONCLUSIONS: Several sexual health needs were among the highest reported supportive care needs. Certain subgroups may report higher needs and desire for help; this domain merits additional research. Needs were extremely diverse, reflecting the use of an individual approach to screening for and meeting survivor needs. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Personal perceptions of the implications and meaning of sexual health and vaginal changes create the subjective experience of a need. Discussions of the women's perceptions of their needs and their views of healthy sexuality will help develop effective treatment plans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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