Quality of life of women with breast cancer in Kinshasa and its explanatory factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The main objective of this study was to assess the quality of life of women with breast cancer in Kinshasa in order to identify the repercussions of this pathology on the mental life of these women. In addition, the study aims to determine the effect of socio-demographic variables on the quality of life of these women. Methods: The study sample consisted of 61 women with breast cancer treated at the University Clinics of Kinshasa. The McGill Quality of Life Rating Scale was administered to the study subjects. The survey took place throughout the month of July 2021. Results:women with breast cancer show a state of general and physical ill-being. They experience a strong sense of psychological, emotional and social well-being. The number of children variable influenced the psychological well-being of these women. The cancer stage variable influenced the psychological well-being of these women. Conclusions: the breast cancer suffered by these women negatively affects their general and physical well-being. The psychological, emotional and social well-being of these women is not affected, and this, because of the integral care at the University Clinics of Kinshasa which contributes to the restoration of the affects of the latter.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".