MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ten-year breast cancer survival - at what cost in human and physical terms? A case-control study of long-term survivors of breast cancer and their physical and functional well-being

2004· article· en· W2281669217 on OpenAlexaff
Maureen Trudeau, L. Lickley, Steven A. Narod, Sandra Mergler, Gillian Hawker, Carol Sawka, D. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerQuality of life (healthcare)Internal medicineLumpectomyTamoxifenCancerGastroenterologySurgeryOncologyMastectomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8010 Background: We sought to clarify the long-term side effects of treatment and quality of life (QOL) of breast cancer survivors. Methods: We conducted a case-control study of survivors, ≤ 10 years disease-free since diagnosis, matched to women with benign breast disease for age, years followed, and demographic profile. Data was collected for routine blood tests, lipids, bone mineral density (BMD), exercise step test, HRT use, vitamin and alternative medication (AM) use, arm strength and measurements, health history, and for survivors, breast cancer demographics. QOL instruments included EORTC QLQ-C30, SF36, and QOL-CS. Results: N = 850, 425 cases, 425 controls. For cases, average tumour size was 2.2 cm, 57% ER +, 40% PR +. 93.8% had axillary nodal dissection, 24.1% had positive nodes, median of 11.8 nodes removed, median of 1 positive. 59.7% had lumpectomy, 50.8% radiotherapy, 33% tamoxifen, 4.9% ovarian ablation, 22.8% chemotherapy, and 13% breast reconstruction. Cases had significantly more pack years smoked (p = 0.04), higher cholesterol (p = 0.01), triglycerides (p = 0.02), LDL (p = 0.04), cholesterol/HDL ratio (p < 0.001); and significantly less arthritis (p = 0.01), GI (p = 0.01) and GU (p = 0.006) complaints, and HRT use (p < 0.0001). BMD was not different. Controls used significantly more AM, cases more mental imagery (p = 0.0002). Cases had significantly larger arm circumferences (p = 0.002), decreased handgrip strength (p = 0.04), controlled for dominant arm and side of surgery. SF 36: social functioning was better for controls (p = 0.03) and role-emotional (p = 0.03). EORTC-QLQ-C30: controls had more pain (p = 0.05), cases had financial difficulties (p = 0.04). QOL-CS: controls had better psychological (p<0.0001) and social functioning (p<0.0001), cases were more spiritual (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Breast cancer survivors had significantly increased arm circumferences, decreased handgrip strength, elevated lipids, decreased psychological and social functioning, but improved spirituality. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207