Influence of Social Determinants, Lifestyle, Emotional Well-Being and the Use of Unconventional Therapies in Breast Cancer Progression in a Cohort of Women in Barcelona: Protocol for the DAMA Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer continues to be the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women. Breast cancer survivors face numerous problems, especially after completing the first year of intense treatment. We present the protocol for an ongoing study to analyze the impact of a series of factors on breast cancer survival related to lifestyle, emotional well-being, and use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). OBJECTIVE: We aim to analyze the influence of social determinants, lifestyle changes, emotional well-being, and use of CAM in the progression of breast cancer in women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2003 and 2013 in Barcelona, Spain. METHODS: We will perform a mixed cohort study (prospective and retrospective) of women diagnosed with breast cancer, created using a convenience sample in which we study the evolution of the disease (relapse, death, or remaining disease-free). Once identified, we sent the women information about the study and an informed consent form that they are required to sign in order to participate; a total of 2235 women were recruited. We obtained the following information from all participants: sociodemographic profile via a phone interview, and a self-administered survey of information about the study's objectives (lifestyles, emotional well-being, health care services, and the use of CAM). Lastly, we examined clinical records to obtain data on the tumor at the time of diagnosis, the treatment received, the occurrence of relapses (if any), and the tumor typology. We present data on the women's social profile based on descriptive data obtained from the telephone interview (welcome survey). RESULTS: Based on the welcome survey, which was completed by 2712 women, 14.42% (391/2712) of respondents were <50 years of age, 45.50% (1234/2712) were between 50 and 65 years of age, and 40.08% (1087/2712) were >65 years of age. A total of 43.69% (1185/2712) belonged to the highest social classes (I and II), 31.27% (848/2712) to the middle class (III), and 23.49% (637/2712) to the working classes (IV and V). Approximately 22.71% (616/2712) lived alone, 38.31% (1039/2712) lived with one person, and 38.97% (1057/2712) lived with two or more people. CONCLUSIONS: We obtained information from a large cohort of women, but this study has limitations related to the convenience sampling strategy, one of which is reduced representativeness. Conversely, being a self-administered survey, the study introduces biases, especially from respondents that answered on paper. However, the information that the study provides will serve as the basis for designing future interventions aimed at improving the knowledge gaps indicated for women with breast cancer.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".