Open to Exploration? Association of Personality Factors With Complementary Therapy Use After Breast Cancer Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Many cancer survivors seek complementary therapies (CTs) to improve their quality of life. While it is well-known that women who are younger, more highly educated, and have higher incomes are more likely to use CTs, individual differences such as personality factors have been largely unexplored as predictors of CT use. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a larger study, 270 women with stage I to III breast cancer completed self-report measures of demographic and illness-related information, personality variables, and use of several different types of CTs. A series of logistic regression models were used to explore whether demographic, illness-related, and personality variables predicted different types of CT use. RESULTS: Prior relationships between education and CT use were replicated. There were no significant relationships between illness-related variables and different types of CT use. Of the 5 personality factors, only openness to experience was a significant predictor of multiple types of CT use. CONCLUSIONS: Openness to experience may represent an individual difference variable that predicts CT use among cancer survivors. CTs themselves may represent a form of intellectual curiosity and novelty seeking. Further studies are needed to replicate and examine the generalizability of the relationship between openness to experience and CT use in oncology populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".