Not Working 3 Years After Breast Cancer: Predictors in a Population-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about factors increasing likelihood of not working among breast cancer survivors compared with women in the general population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted in Quebec, Canada, based on the consecutive series of working women aged younger than 60 years when first treated for breast cancer (identified through the Quebec Tumor Registry), and on a group of randomly selected similar women, living in Quebec, who were working at the time of survivors' diagnoses, but who were without cancer (identified through provincial health care files). Data came from a telephone interview, 3 years after diagnosis for 646 survivors (73% of those eligible) or during a similar period for 890 comparison women (51%). RESULTS: Slightly more survivors were not working 3 years after diagnosis compared with women never diagnosed with cancer (21% and 15%, respectively). Older age (for survivors and comparison women, relative risk [RR] = 4.62, P < .0001 and RR = 4.98, P < .0001, respectively) and union membership (RR = 1.88, P = .0003 and RR = 1.40, P = .06, respectively) increased the likelihood of not working at the end of follow-up. In addition, income less than 20,000 dollars compared with > or = 50,000 dollars was associated with not working only among survivors (RR = 3.18; P = .0008). Adjuvant treatments did not predict work cessation, but any new cancer event during follow-up did (RR = 2.14; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Although reassuring that adjuvant treatments did not appear to play a role in survivors' not working, other aspects of the cancer experience might nonetheless have influenced the decision to reduce work effort after 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 | 0.002 | 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".