The Challenge of Return to Work after Breast Cancer: The Role of Family Situation, CANTO Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Return to work (RTW) after breast cancer is associated with improved quality of life. The link between household characteristics and RTW remains largely unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of the family situation on women's RTW two years after breast cancer. We used data of a French prospective cohort of women diagnosed with stage I-III, primary breast cancer (CANTO, NCT01993498). Among women employed at diagnosis and under 57 years old, we assessed the association between household characteristics (living with a partner, marital status, number and age of economically dependent children, support by the partner) and RTW. Logistic regression models were adjusted for age, household income, stage, comorbidities, treatments and their side effects. Analyzes stratified by age and household income were performed to assess the association between household characteristics and RTW in specific subgroups. Among the 3004 patients included, women living with a partner returned less to work (OR = 0.63 [0.47-0.86]) and decreased their working time after RTW. Among the 2305 women living with a partner, being married was associated with decreased RTW among women aged over 50 (OR = 0.57 [0.34-0.95]). Having three or more children (vs. none) was associated with lower RTW among women with low household income (OR = 0.28 [0.10-0.80]). Household characteristics should be considered in addition to clinical information to identify vulnerable women, reduce the social consequence of cancer and improve their quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".