E-Manuscript Article Summaries*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Of all mastectomy patients, 90% will use an external prosthesis where the standard of care uses a stock prosthesis that is purchased “off the shelf.” Our objectives were to determine patient demand for and perceived value of a custom breast prosthesis. The information obtained will influence future research and program direction. Methods: We asked 65 women who had undergone lumpectomy or mastectomy to participate before exploring rehabilitation options. The quantitative outcome measures were the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 general and -BR23 breast cancer–specific quality of life questionnaires, and the Ambulatory Oncology Patients Satisfaction Tool. The QLQ results were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U-test. Results of the satisfaction tool were compared using the Fisher exact and chi-square tests. A descriptive qualitative approach—involving in-depth interviews exploring the experiences of the women—was used to establish the perceived value of the services to the patients. The analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted using a standardized content method to describe the experiences of the women. Results: All the women had had previous experiences with a conventional prosthesis, and they reported that wearing a custom prosthesis was more satisfying for them. They reported comfort and ease in wearing it, coupled with a sense of feeling less like a victim. Comparison of the qlq and patient satisfaction scores showed no significant difference between the women wearing the conventional prosthesis and those wearing the custom prosthesis. Conclusions: The willingness of women to pay for a prosthesis and the qualitative results from the present study demonstrate that there is demand for a custom approach to treatment. However, if a mixed-methods approach had not been applied during this initial exploration of women’s experiences with custom breast prostheses, the essence of the perceived value of the custom prosthesis would have been lost. Quantitative measures suggest that there is no difference between custom and conventional breast prostheses, but the qualitative data captured in the study provide a sense of aspects of care that a standardized outcome measure cannot capture. Further research with a larger sample size is needed to determine if real differences from a quantitative perspective are possible. Suggestions for improvements in the device and in program operations were gathered and will influence the future development and implementation of a breast prosthesis service, but financial assistance will most likely be needed to make such a service universally accessible.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.834 | 0.673 |
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".