Head and neck cancer treatment and its sexual impact on quality of life: An integrative literature review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify the impacts of head and neck cancer treatment on the sexual health of patients. Methods: An integrative literature review was carried out from May to October 2020 using PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and the SciELO portal. A total of 287 primary articles were identified. After assessing them, 6 articles met the eligibility criteria, which were: all articles published in the last ten years that addressed the sexual impact of HNC treatment on people's lives, without any language or age. Results: Patients with Head and Neck Cancer have to face aesthetic disfigurement challenges in post-treatment. This leads to a greater degree of suffering and social and sexual problems than is observed in other cancer patients. Health professionals do not feel safe to access the intimate and sexual demands of patients during the clinical treatment. Conclusions: Most of the studies included in this review focused on measuring the quality of life using only one or two variables related to sexuality. There is the need other research to explore how multiple factors, such as social, psychological, cultural, religious, ethnic, and ethical factors, affect sexuality. This promotes the creation of the paths for comprehensive care and management of patients.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".