Perceived Risk, Anxiety and Alexithymia in Sisters of Breast Cancer Patients Veena Shukla Mishra and Dhananjaya Saranath
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in Indian women with an annual incidence of 144,937 cases and mortality of 70,218. The perception of cancer risk has consistently been mentioned as major factor influencing the women, who are at increased risk of inherited breast and ovarian cancer. The overestimation of cancer risk has been associated with many negative outcomes like anxiety and distress for one's self and family. Study suggests that women those who have higher perceived breast cancer risk experience greater worry and disengage coping. Aim: The purpose of the study was to examine the perception of risk of breast cancer in sisters of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients and further examine the association with anxiety and alexithymia, as compared with healthy controls without a family history of breast cancer. Methods: The participants were requested to complete questionnaires including demographic and risk perception of breast cancer. The association of risk perception was evaluated by using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory Scale and Toronto Alexithymia Scale in sisters of breast cancer patients and healthy controls. Results: Sisters of 111 breast cancer patients and 123 healthy controls completed the questionnaire. Sisters with high perceived risk showed high scores on anxiety and alexithymia scale as compared with healthy control. Regression analysis showed significant association between perceived risk and anxiety (t=2.023, P < .05) and alexithymia factor difficulty in identifying feelings and total alexithymia score (t=6.787, P < .000 and 3.726, P < .000). Conclusion: Sisters of breast cancer patients showed significantly higher perceived risk, anxiety and alexithymia than their healthy counterparts. The sister's perception of breast cancer risk influences the anxiety and emotional experience. Our data emphasizes that medical professional should discuss risk appraisals to anxiety and emotional concerns in both breast cancer patients and their sisters to help them in coping with breast cancer and concerns in the family.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".