Educating women about breast cancer. An intervention for women with a family history of breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an "information aid" for women with a family history of breast cancer. DESIGN: Before-after descriptive study. SETTING: Family practices in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Of 405 randomly selected Ontario physician members of the College of Family Physician's of Canada's National Research System, 97 agreed to participate and to recruit three consecutive female patients with any family history of breast cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Patients completed a baseline questionnaire and, after reviewing the information aid, a satisfaction questionnaire. Four weeks later, they completed a third questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction, knowledge, worries related to breast cancer, risk perception, and attitudes toward screening. RESULTS: Of 203 patients recruited, 160 (79%) completed all three questionnaires. The information aid was rated excellent or very good by 91% of the women; 99% would recommend it to other women. Knowledge improved significantly; worry about breast cancer did not increase. CONCLUSION: The information aid is a useful resource for women and primary care physicians and could facilitate appropriate risk assessment and management of women with a family history 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".