An objective assessment of the perceived quality of life of living with bilateral mastectomy defect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mastectomy is a common treatment for breast cancer. We set out to quantify the health state utility assessment of living with bilateral mastectomy using previously described validated methods. METHODS: Utility assessments using visual analogue scale (VAS), time trade-off (TTO), and standard gamble (SG) were used to obtain utilities for mastectomy, monocular blindness and binocular blindness from a prospective sample of the general population and medical students. RESULTS: All measures (VAS, TTO, SG) for mastectomy (0.70 ± 0.18, 0.85 ± 0.16, and 0.86 ± 0.17, respectively) of the 120 volunteers were significantly different (p < 0.0001) from the corresponding scores for binocular blindness (0.38 ± 0.17, 0.67 ± 0.24, and 0.69 ± 0.23, respectively). Utility scores for mastectomy were not statistically different (p > 0.05) when compared to those for monocular blindness (0.67 ± 0.13, 0.86 ± 0.15, and 0.86 ± 0.15, respectively). Age, gender, race, and income were not statistically significant independent predictors of utility scores. Medical education was associated with statistically significant higher SG compared to general population (0.90 ± 0.11 versus 0.84 ± 0.19; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In a sample of the general population and medical students, utility assessments for living with bilateral mastectomy were comparable with those of living with the loss of sight from one eye. Our sample population, if faced with living with bilateral mastectomy, would consent to undergo a procedure such as breast reconstruction with a theoretical 14 percent chance of mortality and be willing to trade 5.4 years of existing life-years for such a procedure.
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".