MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast Cancer: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Female Schoolteachers in Lagos, Nigeria

2001· article· en· W2073444269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olumuyiwa O. Odusanya, Fmcph

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerBreast self-examinationFamily medicineQuarter (Canadian coin)CancerBreast cancer awarenessCross-sectional studyGynecologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of female schoolteachers concerning breast cancer. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 200 schoolteachers randomly selected from 12 schools in Lagos, Nigeria. A self-administered questionnaire was used to investigate their knowledge about the symptoms of breast cancer, methods of diagnosis, risk factors, and breast self-examination. A response rate of 94% (188 respondents) was achieved. Eighty-five percent knew breast cancer was a serious disease, but only 53.2% knew that a breast lump was the most commonly recognized sign. Other symptoms were even less well known. Only 13.8% knew the methods of diagnosis, and knowledge of risk factors was also poor. Breast self-examination was practiced by 62% of respondents; 11% practiced it on a monthly basis, but only 25% were deemed to possess sufficient knowledge about the procedure. One-quarter of participants were categorized as possessing a satisfactory knowledge of breast cancer. The level of awareness on breast cancer is very low among this group of female schoolteachers.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations107
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Breast JournalSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207