Assessment of Quality of Life of Women with Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women in 145 countries worldwide, and the success of healthcare for women with this disease is measured with the quality of life of survivors. The aim of this study was to examine how the breast cancer affects the quality of life and in what dimension of health quality of life is the least accomplished. METHOD: A pilot research had been performed in the period from June 10 to August 15 2011, on 100 women from Association of women with breast cancer "Iskra" in Banja Luka, aged 20-75. The survey research was based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3.0 and questionnaire for assessment of quality of life of those suffering from breast cancer QLQ-BR23 with 53 questions in total. RESULTS: The average age of women in research was 51.8 years (±11.23). Statistically important differences (χ24=221.941; p<0.01) are higher mean values of the score for the functional scale, (66.32±17.82) cognitive functions (63.50 ±28.00) in relation to functional role (46.83 ±20.88), social (37.00 ±27.58) and emotional (36.58 ±25.15) functioning. Mean values of the score for the symptoms scale were statistically higher for symptoms such as fatigue, insomnia and pain in relation to other symptoms. Mean values of the score for body image scale are statistically higher in relation to mean values of the score of sexual functions and enjoyment scale, and the scale for grading the future perspectives. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer affects all the domains of the quality of life, and in our population it is the most prominent in domains of emotional and social functions, as well as role functions. Symptoms of fatigue, insomnia and pain have the most importance influence on these domains.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".