Perception of Risk and Surveillance Practices of Women With a Family History of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective study was designed to examine the relationship between perception of risk and surveillance activities (mammography and clinical breast examination) in women with a family history of breast cancer. The Revised Susceptibility, Benefits, and Barriers Scale for Mammography Screening, the Centre for Epidemiology Studies--Depression Scale (CES-D), and a demographic form were administered to a convenience sample of 56 women. There were no significant relationships between perceived risk and screening activities. No significant correlations were found between age or depressive symptoms with either perceived risk or screening behaviors. Women with postsecondary qualifications were more likely to obtain regular mammograms. A substantial portion (34.5%) of participants reported depressive symptoms at a level associated with clinically significant levels of depression (>or=16 on the CES-D). Women over age 50 reported significantly more depressive symptoms than younger women. Perceived risk was not associated with screening; however, depression should be considered closely when dealing with women with higher-than-average risk of breast cancer.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".