MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063402062 · doi:10.1002/pon.497

Attributions of cause and recurrence in long‐term breast cancer survivors

2001· article· en· W2063402062 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineCancerInternal medicineCancer recurrenceTamoxifenOncologyGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Women are bombarded with information about the purported causes and the prevention of breast cancer. This survey sought to determine to what women survivors of breast cancer attributed the cause and lack of recurrence of their breast cancer, and whether these views were associated with specific health behaviors. METHODS: Women who had survived breast cancer without recurrence for at least 2 years were surveyed by mail about their views on the cause and lack of recurrence of their breast cancer. They were also asked to estimate their personal risk of cancer recurrence, report on their health behaviors, describe what advice they would give to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer, and what they would change if they had to relive their breast cancer experience. RESULTS: 378 (75.6%) women breast cancer survivors responded who had been recurrence free for a mean of 8.6+/-11.8 years. Women (n=322) who responded to the question about the cause of breast cancer attributed it to stress (42.2%), genetics (26.7%), environment (25.5%), hormones (23.9%), don't know (16.5%), diet (15.5%), and breast trauma (2.8%). Women (n=330) who responded to the question about what prevented cancer recurrence attributed it to positive attitude (60.0%), diet (50.0%), healthy lifestyle (40.3%), exercise (39.4%), stress reduction (27.9%), prayer (26.4%), complementary therapies (11.2%), don't know (5.1 %), luck (3.9%), and tamoxifen (3.9%). Most women felt their recurrence risk was average (44.8%), or below average (35.8%). Some attributions of breast cancer cause or lack of recurrence were associated with specific health behaviors. The majority of women survivors would advise other women with breast cancer to be positive, and if they had to relive their cancer experience they would take more control of their treatment. DISCUSSION: Despite lack of evidence substantiating stress as a cause of breast cancer, many breast cancer survivors believed stress caused their cancer. An even higher percentage of survivors believed their positive attitude had prevented breast cancer recurrence and they would advise other women with breast cancer accordingly. Attribution beliefs clearly affected survivors' health behaviors. CONCLUSION: Healthcare providers should consider the personal beliefs of patients about cancer cause and recurrence, which may be at variance with scientific evidence. This may assist in framing the management of patients in personally meaningful ways, which may increase health behaviors, adherence, satisfaction and quality of life. Whether it will increase survival remains unknown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.340 · 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