MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383815228 · doi:10.33860/jbc.v5i2.1422

Bra Usage Duration and Breast Cancer Risk: A Case-Control Study

2023· article· en· W4383815228 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dhito Dwi Pramardika, Meityn Disye Kasaluhe, Siti Sindi Lailam Barokah

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Bidan Cerdas · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute of Steel Construction
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineOdds ratioDemographyDuration (music)CancerGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Breast cancer is a disease feared by most women, with 2.3 million women worldwide being diagnosed with this disease. In 2024, Indonesia will relocate its capital to East Kalimantan Province, which currently has the second-highest (1%) prevalence of breast cancer cases in Indonesia. Objective: Given the increasing prevalence of breast cancer, it is worthwhile to scientifically examine the relationship between the duration of bra usage, age at first bra usage, bra size suitability, and types of bras used in relation to the occurrence of breast cancer. Method: The study design used was a case-control study with a 1:1 ratio of 48 respondents (24 cases and 24 controls) selected through purposive sampling. The analysis employed chi-square and odds ratio tests. Results: The study revealed that the average age of the respondents was 45.25 years. Furthermore, the variables of bra usage duration (OR=2.333), age at first bra usage, bra size suitability, and bra type (OR=0.639) showed no association with the occurrence of breast cancer (α>0.05). Conclusion: This research concludes that there is no association between bra usage and the occurrence of breast cancer in women in East Kalimantan Province. Recommendation: It is suggested to reduce the duration of bra usage to less than 24 hours to minimize the risk factors for breast cancer.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Bidan CerdasSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207