The Voice of Experience: Diet and Weight Change in Women with Breast Cancer Associate with Psychosocial and Treatment-Related Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated relationships between psychosocial and treatment-related factors, diet, and weight change in women treated with chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Comprehensive qualitative interviews were conducted with 28 women who were within 12 months of completing chemotherapy treatment. RESULTS: Changes in food intake and eating patterns were universal over the course of chemotherapy, with broad variability in treatment effects and associated dietary responses linked to weight change. Increased appetite, food cravings, and intake of energy-dense comfort foods were more common among women who gained weight during treatment (n = 11). Changes in taste, nausea, and emotional distress were central in promoting these dietary responses. Women who lost weight during treatment (n = 6) tended to report more severe and persistent side effects of treatment leading to poor appetite and lower food intake, and they were more likely to live alone. CONCLUSIONS: While the etiology of weight change in this population is complex, this study suggests that changes in food intake related to treatment and psychosocial challenges may play an important role for some women. These findings may help to identify women who are most at risk of weight change during treatment and may inform the development of tailored dietary interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".