Factors Associated with “Survivor Identity” in Men with Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer patients vary in their comfort with the label “survivor”. Here, we explore how comfortable males with breast cancer (BC) are about accepting the label cancer “survivor”. Separate univariate logistic regressions were performed to assess whether time since diagnosis, age, treatment status, and cancer stage were associated with comfort with the “survivor” label. Of the 70 males treated for BC who participated in the study, 58% moderately-to-strongly liked the term “survivor”, 26% were neutral, and 16% moderately-to-strongly disliked the term. Of the factors we explored, only a longer time since diagnosis was significantly associated with the men endorsing a survivor identity (OR = 1.02, p = 0.05). We discuss how our findings compare with literature reports on the comfort with the label “survivor” for women with BC and men with prostate cancer. Unlike males with prostate cancer, males with BC identify as “survivors” in line with women with BC. This suggests that survivor identity is more influenced by disease type and treatments received than with sex/gender identities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".