MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Taking control of cancer: Why women are choosing mastectomy.

2013· article· en· W2586291419 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Covelli, Nancy N. Baxter, Margaret I. Fitch, Frances C. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerGrounded theoryMastectomyNonprobability samplingCancerQualitative researchLumpectomySurgeryInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9571 Background: Rates of both unilateral (UM) and bilateral mastectomy (BM) for early stage breast cancer (ESBC) have been increasing since 2003. Studies suggest that this is due to women playing a more active role in their decision making, however they do not describe why women are choosing this option. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using grounded theory to identify factors influential in women’s choice for mastectomy. Purposive sampling was used to identify women across the Greater Toronto Area (Ontario, Canada), who were suitable candidates for breast conserving surgery (BCS) but underwent UM or BM. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Constant comparative analysis identified key ideas and themes. Results: Data saturation was achieved after 29 in-person interviews. 12 interviewees were treated at academic cancer centres, 6 at an academic non-cancer centre and 11 at community centres. 15 women underwent UM; 14 underwent BM. Median age was 55. ‘Taking control of cancer’ was the dominant theme that emerged. There were 7 subthemes: 1.the Diagnosis of cancer was received with shock and fear; 2.during Surgical Discussion both BCS and UM were discussed; BM was discouraged by the surgeon 3.women Misperceived Risk, misunderstanding recurrence and survival rates 4.Women’s choice for UM was due to fear of recurrence and/ or radiation 5.Women’s choice for BM was due to fear of recurrence, ‘never wanting to do this again’ and/or need for cosmetic balance 6.Sources of Information varied in importance, previous cancer experience had the greatest impact 7.women were actively Controlling Outcomes, more surgery was seen as greater control. Conclusions: Women seeking UM and BM for treatment of their early stage breast cancer manage their fear of recurrence and ‘never wanting to go through this again’ by undergoing more extensive surgery. The patient’s effort to control the cancer outcome is the driving factor behind women choosing mastectomy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.423
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBRCA gene mutations in cancer→French-language works237,207→