Prevalence and psychological repercussion of phantom breast syndrome in women undergoing mastectomy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the world and the leading cause of death among Brazilian women. The presence of phantom breast syndrome (PBS) is one of the possible postoperative complications and may reach prevalences of up to 53% among mastectomized women. This study assessed the scientific evidence regarding the presence of PBS and its psychological repercussions in women undergoing mastectomy. This is a systematic review of observational studies based on the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. The methodological quality of the studies and the level of scientific evidence were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. A total of 95 articles were identified, but only 11 met the eligibility criteria. The outcomes of the presence of PBS and psychological repercussion were evaluated in 2,160 and 1,996 patients, respectively. It was found that the prevalence of PBS varies according to age, being on average 28% and reaching up to 50% in women under 80 years of age. This phenomenon can occur from three months to six years after amputation, tending to regress over time. Anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders are the most prevalent psychological effects (35.8%, 31.5%, and 29.2%, respectively). The studies presented strong scientific evidence of PBS and moderate evidence of psychological repercussions associated with this context.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".