Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast cancer treatment indelibly alters a woman's reproductive and sexual functioning, body integrity, and the ways in which she self-identifies as a sexual being. Improved understanding of how treatment affects these aspects of a woman's health, identity, and relationships is necessary to ameliorate the effectiveness with which these issues are addressed by healthcare providers. RECENT FINDINGS: Women with breast cancer experience significantly greater rates of sexual dysfunction and poorer body image than do healthy women. Despite this reality, most breast cancer patients are dissatisfied with the amount and quality of care they receive from their healthcare providers around sexuality. Although a substantial proportion of women endorse difficulties with sexual functioning, reproduction, and body image, each woman's experience is individual and contextual, influenced by a range of factors (e.g., age, illness stage, treatment type(s), relationship status, and others). SUMMARY: A high proportion of women experience difficulties with sexual health and self-concept secondary to breast cancer, yet an overwhelming number report receiving inadequate or nonexistent care in these domains from their healthcare providers. There remains too wide a gap between the needs of this population and the healthcare system's response to such needs. To bridge this gap, oncology professionals across a range of disciplines must be better trained to identify, assess, and treat such difficulties, preferably using a multimodal approach that includes biological, as well as psychological and social, strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".