The association between religiosity, spirituality, and breast cancer screening: A cross-sectional analysis of Alberta’s Tomorrow Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women. Screening permits the early detection and treatment of malignancies, thereby reducing mortality. A woman's religiosity and spirituality (R/S) may facilitate screening through encouragement of healthy behaviors. Population-level data from Alberta's Tomorrow Project (ATP) were used to explore the cross-sectional association between R/S and breast cancer screening among women aged 50 to 69 years who did not have a history of breast cancer. Two variables were used to measure R/S: (1) R/S Salience was defined as the importance of religion and spirituality in one's life; (2) R/S Attendance was defined as the frequency of attendance at religious or spiritual services. We regressed breast cancer screening (mammogram: yes/no) on each R/S variable in separate multivariable logistic regression models. At baseline (n = 2569), 94% of women reported receiving a mammogram. Greater R/S Salience was not associated with receipt of mammogram: the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.51. R/S Attendance also showed no association with mammogram: attending at least once monthly versus never attending (aOR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.71-1.69); attending one to four times yearly versus never attending (aOR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.57-1.58). Further research could examine specific subgroups of the population, e.g., whether use of R/S to promote breast cancer screening may be more effective among females with strong pre-existing connections to faith.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".