MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053485448 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v3n2p140

Health Related Quality of Life among Breast Cancer Patients: a Study from Turkey

2011· article· en· W2053485448 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Şehsuvar Gökgöz, Ganime Sadıkoğlu, Ela Paksoy, Umit Guneytepe, Alis Özçakır, Nuran Bayram, Nazan Bilgel

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Statistical Modeling Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerQuality of life (healthcare)TurkishCancerPhysical therapyOutpatient clinicFamily medicineGynecologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of life of 123 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who had been followed up after the initial treatment by the outpatient clinic for breast surgery of a university hospital. The Turkish version of QLQ-C30 (Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30) and QLQ-BR23 (Quality of Life Questionnaire- Breast Cancer 23) were used to measure the quality of life. The mean score for global heath status/ QOL was 64.43. Patients with localized cancer had higher scores. Those in the advanced stages of breast cancer had lower physical, social and sexual functioning than those in the early stages. Patients who were currently receiving chemotherapy had lower global health/QOL, significantly different from those receiving only hormone therapy. Breast cancer patients experience problems in multiple quality of life domains. Health professionals must recognize and take into consideration the importance of QOL, in order to improve the health of breast cancer patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicAdvanced Statistical Modeling TechniquesFrench-language works237,207