Understanding Women’s Choice of Mastectomy Versus Breast Conserving Therapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that influence Saskatchewan women's choice between breast conserving therapy (BCT) and mastectomy in early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) and to compare and contrast underlying reasons behind choice of BCT versus mastectomy. METHODS: Interpretive description methods guided this practice-based qualitative study. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and presented in thematic maps. RESULTS: Women who chose mastectomy described 1 of the 3 main themes: worry about cancer recurrence, perceived consequences of BCT treatment, or breast-tumor size perception. In contrast, women chose BCT because of 3 different themes: mastectomy being too radical, surgeon influence, and feminine identity. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual reasons for choosing mastectomy versus BCT have been discussed in the literature before, different rationale underlying each choice has not been previously described. These results are novel in identifying interdependent subthemes and secondary reasons for each choice. This is important for increased understanding of factors influencing a complicated decision-making process.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".