MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981532934 · doi:10.1177/2292550319880924

The Impact of Delaying Breast Reconstruction on Patient Expectations and Health-Related Quality of Life: An Analysis Using the BREAST-Q

2019· article· en· W2981532934 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Morzycki, Joseph P. Corkum, Nadim Joukhadar, Osama A. Samargandi, Jason G. Williams, Simon G. Frank

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast reconstructionQuality of life (healthcare)Breast cancerMedicineQuality (philosophy)Health related quality of lifeInternal medicineNursingDiseasePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: An understanding of patient expectations predicts better health outcomes following breast reconstruction. No study to date has examined how patient expectations for breast reconstruction and preoperative health-related quality of life vary with time since breast cancer diagnosis. Methods: Women consulting for breast reconstruction to a single surgeon’s practice over a 13-month period were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Patients were asked to prospectively complete the BREAST-Q expectations and preoperative reconstruction modules. A retrospective chart review was then performed on eligible patients, and patient demographics, cancer-related factors, and comorbidities were collected. BREAST-Q scores were transformed using the equivalent Rasch method. Multivariate linear regression models were constructed to assess the association between BREAST-Q scores and time since cancer diagnosis. Results: Sixty-five patients met inclusion criteria for analysis and are characterized by a mean age of 53 ± 11 (34-79) years and a mean body mass index of 28 ± 6 (19-49). Most patients were treated by mastectomy (58%) or lumpectomy (23%). At the time of retrospective chart review, 29 (43%) patients had undergone reconstruction, most of which were delayed (59%). The mean latency from cancer diagnosis to reconstruction was 685 ± 867 days (range: 28-3322 days). Latency from cancer diagnosis to reconstruction was associated with a greater expectation of pain (β = 0.5; standard error [SE] = 0.005; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.003-0.027; P < .05), and a slower expectation for recovery (β = −0.5; SE = 0.004; 95% CI: −0.021 to −0.001; P < .05) after breast reconstruction. Latency from cancer diagnosis to reconstruction was associated with an increase in preoperative psychosocial well-being (β = 0.578; SE 0.009; 95% CI: 0.002-0.046; P < .05). Conclusion: Delaying breast reconstruction may negatively impact patient expectations of postoperative pain and recovery. Educational interventions aimed at understanding and managing patient expectations in the preoperative period may improve health-related quality of life and patient-related outcomes following initial breast cancer surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic SurgerySame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207