A prospective study of mastectomy patients with and without delayed breast reconstruction: Long‐term psychosocial functioning in the breast cancer survivorship period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: For women who have mastectomy, breast reconstruction is an option which may improve psychosocial functioning. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in psychosocial functioning over a long follow-up period after mastectomy, specifically examining the differences between those with mastectomy alone and those who underwent postmastectomy delayed breast reconstruction (DBR). METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal survey study of women with mastectomy in which a repeated measures design was used to compare psychosocial function scores over 3 timepoints: 1) pre-mastectomy; 2) one year post-mastectomy; and 3) long-term post-mastectomy (mean 6.3 years). In addition, psychosocial functioning was compared between the mastectomy alone group and the group who elected for DBR. RESULTS: 67 women who completed questionnaires at all three time points were included. The long-term follow-up time post-mastectomy was 75.2 months (6.3 years). Twenty-eight women (41.8%) underwent DBR in the study period. For the entire cohort, between one-year and long-term post-mastectomy, there were significant improvements in scores for body concerns (P = 0.03), cancer-related distress (P = 0.01), and total distress (P = 0.04). At long-term follow-up, women with DBR had significantly higher levels of total distress (P = 0.01), obsessiveness (P = 0.03), and cancer-related distress (P = 0.02) compared to those with mastectomy alone. There were no differences in quality of life between the two groups at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial functioning improves over time in patients treated with mastectomy in the long-term breast cancer survivorship period, which may be related to the effect of time post-treatment, rather than an effect of choice for or against DBR.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".