MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104905344 · doi:10.5737/1181912x222101106

Travelling on parallel tracks: Patient and physician perspectives on why women delay seeking care for breast cancer symptoms

2012· article· en· W2104905344 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Leeat Granek, Barbara Fitzgerald, Karen Fergus, Mark Clemons, Ruth Heisey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa HospitalSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of OttawaYork UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerNarrativePresentation (obstetrics)Family medicineMedicineHealth careAttributionCancerQualitative researchPsychologyNursingSocial psychologyObstetricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the breast cancer literature, "delayed presentation" is defined as a delay of > 3 months from the self-detection of a new breast cancer symptom until presentation to a health care provider. It has been established that early detection of breast cancer is associated with better health outcomes. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore reasons why women delay seeking care for their breast cancer symptoms by asking both women and family physicians for their perspectives. Narrative analysis was used to reveal the ways in which people make sense of their experiences and which parts of their stories are most important to them. We found differences in the explanatory narratives of women versus those of family physicians when it came to understanding delay. Suggestions to promote earlier presentation include improving physician-patient communication and encouraging physician and health care professional neutrality in making attributions about women's delay.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207