Improving Evidence-Based Methods of Characterizing Shoulder-Related Quality of Life for Survivors of Breast Cancer
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is prevalent among Canadian women, but treatments may cause functional impairments among survivors. Despite a substantial number of survivors joining the population yearly, minimal research has approached the challenges faced by this population after primary treatment. The purpose of this study was to classify the different function of survivors of breast cancer and determine factors that differed across groups of survivors. Methods: Thirty-five survivors of breast cancer within 2 years since the conclusion of their treatment participated in this cross-sectional study. Participants completed quality-of-life questionnaires, followed by a full-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning. The collection concluded with maximal force exertions at the shoulder and maximum shoulder range of motion. Results: This study determined, through feature reduction, that internal rotation force production, active extension range of motion, and 3 shoulder-related quality-of-life variables (energy/fatigue, social functioning, and pain) separated survivors within 2 years of treatment into 2 clusters (low- and high-score clusters [LSC/HSC], respectively). The LSC participants had higher self-reported disability, lower shoulder-related quality of life, force production, and flexion range of motion. Conclusion: Clustering survivors of breast cancer allows for a better understanding of deficits experienced by some individuals, as well as brings awareness to factors to monitor, and address in rehabilitation efforts.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it