Experiences of men with breast cancer: a qualitative study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\n\t\t\t\t\t<b>Background</b><br />Recent reports indicate that male breast cancer rates are increasing in North America. While there have been numerous large-scale studies examining women's experiences with breast cancer, to date there have been no North American studies examining what a man experiences with a breast cancer diagnosis. The objective of this qualitative study was to describe the experiences of a sample of Canadian men diagnosed with breast cancer.<br /><br /><b>Methods</b><br />After written informed consent, unstructured audio-taped interviews were conducted with 20 men. Since little is known about a man's experience with breast cancer, an exploratory qualitative approach was utilized.<br /><br /><b>Results</b><br />Participants experienced concerns related to the lack of awareness of male breast cancer within both public and health professional groups. Many men suffered stress related to the cancer diagnosis, body image concerns and role strain. The lack of male-specific breast cancer information was identified as a major concern. All denied interest in traditional support groups. In retrospect, a number of men felt the breast cancer experience vastly improved their lives.<br /><br /><b>Conclusions</b><br />Needs identified by participants include increased public and health professional awareness of male breast cancer, written information specific for men, and male participation in breast cancer research. Further study is also necessary to identify supports considered helpful by men with breast cancer and other malignancies.<br /><br />\n\t\t\t\t
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 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 | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it