The Impact of Breast Cancer on Female Sexuality: An Integrative Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct an integrative literature review on the impact of breast cancer (CA) on female sexuality.METHODS: The search was performed online in November 2014 using the following databases: Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, PubMed, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and the Cochrane Library. The search results consisted of 13 articles.SYNTHESIS: Most studies have shown that women have less lubrication and a decrease in desire, which directly affect their quality of life. Moreover, 70% of the articles described limitations of the studies, the most cited of which were as follows: small sample size because of the feeling that participants considered the theme to be embarrassing, the altered emotional state decreased willingness to participate in the study, and the non-participation of husbands in the study reduced the impact on marital intimacy.CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that breast cancer has a negative impact on the sexual function of women who are affected by this disease.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".