Stress Response Syndromes in Women Undergoing Mammography: A Comparison of Women With and Without a History of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, severity, and correlates of acute stress responses in women undergoing diagnostic mammographic surveillance and to explore the moderating impact of physician support on these symptoms. METHODS: Sixty-six female breast cancer outpatients (at least 12 months after diagnosis and primary treatment) and 69 healthy women undergoing mammographic surveillance completed measures of: acute stress response, somatization, trauma history, psychiatric history, social support, and physician satisfaction. RESULTS: Previous cancer, pre-mammography breast complaints, lower income, previous psychiatric medication use, greater instrumental support, greater somatization, greater perceived physician disengagement, and less perceived physician support were all associated with increased stress responses. Among women with a previous cancer diagnosis, those with greater distress reported higher levels of physician support. In contrast, among those without a previous cancer diagnosis, those with greater perceived physician support reported less distress. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that cancer-related cues, such as follow-up surveillance, may trigger a sensitizing response in women with a previous cancer diagnosis. The association of distress with physician support may arise from the responsiveness of physicians to identified distress, from increased help-seeking behavior by those who are distressed, or both. The benefit of support provided by health care professionals to those at risk of developing stress response syndromes deserves further study.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".