Abstract 25: Normative Values for the BREAST-Q
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The BREAST-Q measures patient satisfaction and well-being in breast surgery patients. It is a widely used, rigorously developed, patient-reported outcome questionnaire. However, there currently are no published normative values for the BREAST-Q, limiting interpretability. Our primary aim was to generate normative values for the BREAST-Q. These normative values were then used as a reference point to interpret BREAST-Q data in breast surgery patients. METHODS: Participants were recruited via the Army of Women, an online community of women with and without breast cancer that promotes breast cancer research. Participants completed one of the three unique pre-operative BREAST-Q questionnaires: Reduction, Augmentation, or Reconstruction. Inclusion criteria were female gender, age 18 years or greater, and no prior history of breast surgery or breast cancer. Analysis included descriptive statistics and a linear multivariate regression to determine variables associated with scale measures. A secondary analysis compared these normative values to a selected sample of published BREAST-Q data for reduction, augmentation and breast cancer patients. Breast cancer patients were divided into the following groups: mastectomy, lumpectomy, and reconstruction with autologous tissue or implants. RESULTS: A total of 3,618 women completed pre-operative BREAST-Q questionnaires: Reduction (n=1206), Augmentation (n=1211) and Reconstruction (n=1201). Mean age was 54.1 ± 12.8 years, mean BMI 26.6 ± 6.1, and bra-cup size ≥D was present in 39% of women (n=1403). Normative values for Satisfaction with Breasts (SwB), Psychosocial Well-being (PsWb), Sexual Well-being (SWb), Physical Well-being-Chest, and Physical Well-being-Abdomen (PhWb-C, PhWb-A) varied between modules. Negative predictors were BMI ≥30 and bra size ≥D. A comparison of normative scores to published breast surgery patient data for reduction, augmentation, and breast cancer are as follows. BREAST-Q scores were lower than the norm before and higher than the norm after breast reduction and augmentation, with the exception of post-operative Physical Well-being scores in augmentation patients. In patients with breast cancer, Satisfaction with Breasts scores were higher than the norm after autologous reconstruction and lower than the norm after mastectomy. Sexual Well-being scores were lower than the norm after mastectomy and lumpectomy. Physical Well-being-Chest scores were lower than the norm post-op for all breast cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Normative values provide an important reference point for interpreting BREAST-Q data. Normative values will improve the quantification of the health burden of surgical breast conditions. Normative values will additionally provide clinical context for interpreting the changes in satisfaction and well-being associated with breast reduction, augmentation, and breast cancer resection and reconstruction.
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 | 0.028 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".