Exploring Body Image In Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatments for breast cancer are invasive, causing visible changes such as loss of the breast, weight gain, and hair loss. These changes in conjunction with the societal pressure for women to conform to feminine beauty ideals may lead to body image disturbance in breast cancer survivors (BCS). Exercise is a positive health strategy that has shown promise in improving body image perception in both general and cancer populations. PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of body image and body weight concerns in BCS participating in an exercise program and to see if a program focussing on fitness and cancer related symptoms results in improvements in self-reported body image and body weight. METHODS: The study took place at Wellspring Edmonton; a nonprofit centre that offers supportive programs to meet the psychological, emotional and educational needs of individuals and families living with cancer in Canada. Participants were BCS taking part in the Alberta Cancer Exercise (ACE) Program at the Wellspring site, twice weekly for 12 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes, including questions related to body appearance and weight concerns were collected before and after the intervention. Data were analyzed to compare the proportion of women reporting issues at baseline and post-intervention. Data collection began January 2017 and ended June 2019. RESULTS: Eighty-six BCS enrolled and completed the ACE program (100%), with an exercise attendance rate of 84%. Twenty-five (29%) BCS reported body appearance disturbance and 42 (49%) reported issues with body weight. Significant reductions were seen post-intervention in the proportion of BCS reporting issues with both body appearance (n = 14; p<0.05) and body weight (n=31; p<0.05), representing reductions of 44% and 26% respectively. Similar to findings of previous research, no significant changes (p >0.05) were observed in BMI or body weight. CONCLUSION: Issues with body appearance and weight are common among BCS at our Wellspring site. Although benefit was seen in some BCS from exercise alone; given that body image can affect BCS physically, psychologically and socially, research involving a multi-disciplinary approach is warranted. Wellspring provides an ideal setting for future research involving multimodal interventions. Supported by the University of Alberta
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".