Factors influencing psychological wellbeing of early breast cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper aims to identify factors that influence the psychological wellbeing of patients newly diagnosed with localized breast cancer. BACKGROUND: Psychological wellbeing plays a significant part in the personal experience of patients during their cancer journey. However, despite progress in treatments and outcomes in breast cancer, psychosocial services and emotional support of cancer patients have been given less attention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected through a retrospective review of 274 charts of women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2012 and 2017 that received care in a single cancer center. Disease specific parameters, social and demographic variables, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores were extracted from the patient charts. RESULTS: Self-reported scores of psychological-related symptoms were low (suggesting no or minimal psychological distress) at baseline and remained low in the majority of patients with breast cancer. Pain, depression, anxiety and wellbeing scores of 0-2 were observed in 78.5%, 81.4%, 63.5% and 70.1% of patients, respectively. Higher scores of anxiety at baseline were observed in patients with physical restrictions on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) (14.9%), current smoking (20.5%) and history of mental illness (19.1%). Increasing scores for pain were observed in older patients during treatment as compared to baseline. Mastectomy was associated with increased scores for wellbeing (worsening wellbeing) as compared to lumpectomy. Of the patients with a history of mental illness (17.3%), 19.1% had more often increased scores for anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight patients that may benefit from additional social and psychological supports at diagnosis and while undergoing treatment.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".