Cross-sectional nationwide mixed-methods population-based study of living conditions, and identification of sexual and fertility profiles among young women after breast cancer in France: the Candy study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: At the end of the treatment, many young breast cancer (BC) survivors face difficulties related to fertility and sexuality, mainly due to the side effects of treatment. Integrating patient needs into medical decisions is becoming increasingly essential for high quality care. To this end, there is a compelling need to elicit patients' perspectives through qualitative studies, to understand their experiences and needs in the aftermath of cancer. We aim to: (1) identify clinical, social and economic determinants of sexuality and fertility, and describe other living conditions of young BC survivors in France; and (2) explore young women's experience after BC in relation to clinical and information needs about fertility preservation and sexual health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods, cross-sectional, population-based study. In the quantitative component, women diagnosed with non-metastatic BC between 2009 and 2016 and aged 40 years or younger at diagnosis will be identified through the French network of cancer registries (FRANCIM). Participants will complete self-report questionnaires including standardised measures of sexuality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety, depression, social deprivation and social support. Fertility and professional reintegration issues will also be assessed. Sexuality profiles will be identified by ascending hierarchical classification and fertility profiles will be identified by latent class models. Determinants of sexuality, fertility and HRQoL will be identified using a mixed regression model. Subsequently, semistructured interviews will be performed with a sample of 30 women who participated in the quantitative study. Interviews will be recorded, transcribed synthetically and content analysis will be performed, with the aid of NVivo software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be performed in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved in October 2020 by the Committee for the Protection of Persons North-West III (20.07.16.44445) and by the French national data protection authority (CNIL-MR003 No1989764-v0).The results of this project will be communicated to the scientific community through publications in international scientific peer-reviewed journals and communications to national and international congresses. Popularised results will also be provided to patient associations. The results of Candy project will also be published on the website of the sponsor, www.cgfl.fr.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".