Understanding the Essential Meaning of Measured Changes in Weight and Body Composition Among Women During and After Adjuvant Treatment for Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changes in weight and body composition among women during and after adjuvant antineoplastic treatment for breast cancer may influence long-term survival and quality of life. Research on factual weight changes is diverse and contrasting, and their influence on women's perception of body and self seems to be insufficiently explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to expand the understanding of the association between changes in weight and body composition and the women's perception of body and selves. METHODS: A mixed-methods research design was used. Data consisted of weight and body composition measures from 95 women with breast cancer during 18 months past surgery. Twelve women from this cohort were interviewed individually at 12 months. Linear mixed model and logistic regression were used to estimate changes of repeated measures and odds ratio. Interviews were analyzed guided by existential phenomenology. RESULTS: Joint displays and integrative mixed-methods interpretation demonstrated that even small weight gains, extended waist, and weight loss were associated with fearing recurrence of breast cancer. Perceiving an ambiguous transforming body, the women moved between a unified body subject and the body as an object dissociated in "I" and "it" while fighting against or accepting the body changes. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating findings demonstrated that factual weight changes do not correspond with the perceived changes and may trigger existential threats. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Transition to a new habitual body demand health practitioners to enter a joint narrative work to reveal how the changes impact on the women's body and self-perception independent of how they are displayed quantitatively.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".