How to ask and what to do
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As the number of female cancer survivors continues to grow, there is a growing need to bridge the gap between the high rate of women's cancer-related sexual dysfunction and the lack of attention and intervention available to the majority of survivors who suffer from sexual problems. Previously identified barriers that hinder communication for providers include limited time, lack of preparation, and a lack of patient resources and access to appropriate referral sources. RECENT FINDINGS: This study brings together a recently developed model for approaching clinical inquiry about sexual health with a brief problem checklist that has been adapted for use for female cancer survivors, as well as practical evidence-based strategies on how to address concerns identified on the checklist. Examples of patient education sheets are provided as well as strategies for building a referral network. SUMMARY: By providing access to a concise and efficient tool for clinical inquiry, as well as targeted material resources and practical health-promoting strategies based on recent evidence-based findings, we hope to begin eliminating the barriers that hamper oncology providers from addressing the topic of sexual/vaginal health after 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 | 0.011 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.011 |
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".