MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How reliable are post-mastectomy breast reconstruction videos on YouTube?

2023· article· en· W4388204072 on OpenAlexaff
Nina Morena, Libby Ben-Zvi, Victoria Hayman, Mary Hou, Diana Nguyen, Carrie A. Rentschler, Ari N. Meguerditchian

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Oncology Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of CalgaryMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisBreast cancerMastectomyNarrativePsychologyMedicinePerceptionUploadQualitative researchCancerComputer scienceArtWorld Wide WebInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

305 Background: Social media are a significant source of information for young women with breast cancer (YWBC) undergoing post-mastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR). The emphasis on visual storytelling and building community in online spaces renders YouTube (YT) to be a common platform for discussions of BR. This study aims to assess the quality of YT videos about PMBR, identify themes related to the PMBR experience, and quantify perceptions of BR as an option PM. Methods: YT was searched incognito with terms “young women breast cancer reconstruction” in 08/2022, in order from most to least viewed. Title, upload date, length, poster identity, number of likes and comments were collected. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for audiovisual materials (PEMAT A/V) was used to evaluate understandability and actionability. DISCERN assessed quality and reliability. Presence of sponsorship, intended audience, patient and healthcare professional narratives, and perceptions of PMBR were collected. Reviewers noted whether PMBR was shown and how. Themes were collected inductively and deductively for thematic analysis. Results: 193 videos were identified. Mean video length was 14.6 minutes (SD 20.0 min). 87.1% included sponsorships. 95.9% of videos were posted by an organization. 60.6% were information-based; 45.6% experience-based. Mean PEMAT scores for understandability and actionability were 71.3% (SD 13.4) and 35.7% (SD 41.8), respectively. Mean DISCERN was 2.6/5 (SD 1.2). Patient narrative was present in 52.6% and healthcare professionals’ in 68.4%. PMBR was visually presented 22.8% of the time. 13.5% of videos explicitly recommended PMBR. 2.6% explicitly discouraged it. Patients (77.7%) are the majority of the intended audience. Most common deductively identified themes included treatment (87.1%), family relationship (17.1%), motherhood ( 15.5%), fertility (11.9%). Inductively identified subthemes included differentiating between various options for PMBR surgery, BRCA genetic testing, psychosocial effects of breast cancer and PMBR, and recovery from surgery. Conclusions: YT is a platform wherein various PMBR options are widely discussed and explained. PMBR videos are highly understandable but have moderate levels of actionability, quality, and reliability. Videos are highly sponsored, demonstrating significant institutional bias. Themes are overwhelmingly treatment and surgery-based. Personal themes were present but not dominant.[Table: see text]

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Oncology PracticeSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207