Factors related to mammography adherence among women in Brazil: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore and synthesize the literature on factors related to mammography screening adherence among women in Brazil. DESIGN: A scoping review. METHODS: We searched 11 databases for studies published between 2006-January 2020. All identified articles were screened, and data were extracted from eligible studies. We used the UK Government Social Research Service weight of evidence appraisal tool to appraise the quality of the included study. RESULTS: From a total of 1,384 identified articles, 22 were retained. All included studies used quantitative, non-experimental methods and all but two studies used cross-sectional data. Quality of evidence varied across studies. We identified 41 factors that were investigated across the set of studies. Demographic and socio-economic factors were the most commonly investigated, with older age, urban residence, living in the southeast of Brazil, higher level of education, higher income and private health insurance most consistently associated with mammography adherence.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it