MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224925606 · doi:10.1177/10436596221085301

Barriers and Facilitators Influencing Arab Muslim Immigrant and Refugee Women’s Breast Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review

2022· review· en· W4224925606 on OpenAlex
Louise Racine, İşıl Işik Andsoy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Transcultural Nursing · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuSigma Theta Tau International
KeywordsImmigrationRefugeeNarrativeMedicineBreast cancer screeningBreast cancerGender studiesCancer screeningAcculturationGerontologyFamily medicineNursingCancerSociologyMammographyPolitical scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This narrative review identifies barriers and facilitators influencing breast cancer screening among Arab Muslim immigrants and refugees. Low participation rates create health inequities in breast cancer screening among this population. METHOD: A systematic search of peer-reviewed empirical articles was performed. PRISMA, CASP, and MMAT checklists were used to appraise the studies. RESULTS: Results include 3 themes: individual, health care system and health providers, and cultural factors. DISCUSSION: Lack of fluency in the new country's language, lack of knowledge, and poor exposure to breast cancer screening may contribute to the Arab Muslim women's vulnerability to undiagnosed or delayed breast cancer diagnosis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it