MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract P2-12-02: How Common Is Sexual Dysfunction among Women with Early Stage Breast Cancer?

2010· article· en· W2322798756 on OpenAlexaff
S Dent, DAM Frechette, Shiv P. Verma, MJ Clemons, P Wheatley-Price, SZ Gertler, Xiaowei Song, TR Asmis, N. Graham, Lise Paquet

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerSexual functionSexual dysfunctionDistressCancerAnxietyQuality of life (healthcare)Hypoactive sexual desire disorderGynecologyInternal medicineClinical psychologyObstetricsSexual desireHuman sexualityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Despite the high prevalence of sexual problems (50—90%) among women with early stage breast cancer (EBC), relatively little is known about the prevalence of clinically significant post-systemic treatment sexual dysfunction (SD) and its impact on quality of life (QOL). According to the American Psychiatric Association (APA), SD consists of sexual problems causing marked personal distress. While 40% of healthy US women report sexual problems, only 12% experience SD. No study has applied the APA criterion to document the prevalence of SD in women with EBC who have completed systemic therapy. The goal of this study is to address this gap and to examine some correlates (anxious predispositions and menopausal symptoms) of SD and the impact of SD on QOL. Methods: Post-menopausal women receiving cancer therapy for EBC or early colon cancer were approached for this study. Sexual problems were evaluated with the Female Sexual Function Index while sexual distress was assessed with the Female Sexual Distress Scale. QOL was measured with FACT-B, using its endocrine symptoms subscale (ES) to assess menopausal symptoms. Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory measured anxious predispositions. Participants completed questionnaires upon completion of adjuvant chemotherapy but prior to initiation of hormonal therapy (estrogen sensitive EBC). SD was assessed using the APA classification. Results: Between January 2009 and May 1 2010, 70 EBC patients entered this study. The proportion of women (mean age 61) reporting 1 or more sexual problems was high (93%) and included problems with 1) frequency (66%) and level (65%) of sexual desire, 2) frequency (66%), level (52%) and satisfaction (43%) of arousal, 3) frequency (21%) of vaginal dryness and difficulty becoming lubricated (47%) during sexual activity, 4) satisfaction with their sexual life (30%) and 5) pain during intercourse (18%). However, the APA criterion identified only 30% of patients as having SD. Multiple logistic regression showed that anxiety predispositions and menopausal symptoms predicted SD (p< .01). Women classified as having SD had higher anxiety scores (No SD=34 SD=41, p<.05) as well as higher levels of menopausal symptoms (i.e, lower ES scores; No SD= 62 SD=54, p<.01). QOL was negatively impacted by SD (r=-0.42, p<.01). Discussion: Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of patients had sexual difficulties, the APA distress criterion identified far fewer patients (30 %) with SD. Nevertheless, we found a high prevalence rate of SD, which was 2.5 times higher (%2 < .01) than that reported in women without a cancer diagnosis. Women with anxious predispositions and high menopausal symptoms may be at risk for SD and may benefit from early interventions to prevent SD. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-12-02.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→