Women’s Perspectives Regarding the Impact of Ovarian Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ovarian cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in women. Ovarian cancer and its treatment have a considerable effect on the quality of life of women diagnosed with the disease. Currently, little is known about the perspectives of women regarding their experiences of living with ovarian cancer or the impact of recurrent disease. This article presents data from a national study of Canadian women living with ovarian cancer and describes the impact of the disease and its treatment. In this study, 93 women had recurrent disease, and 170 had not experienced recurrent disease. Women in both groups were similar, ranging in age from 21 to 61 years. Two-thirds of the women were married, and all were white. A greater proportion of the women with recurrent disease reported bowel problems; fears of dying, pain, getting around; and feelings of self-blame. On the average, women with recurrent disease reported experiencing more problems since diagnosis than those without recurrent disease (p = 0.01). The proportion of women who perceived that they received adequate help for their problems ranged from 20% to 85%. Implications for oncology nurses regarding assessment, referral for assistance, and patient education are apparent from the study findings.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".