Breamy: An augmented reality mHealth prototype for surgical decision‐making in 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
Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer, affecting approximately one in eight women during their lifetime. Deciding on breast cancer treatment, which includes the choice between surgical options, frequently demands prompt decision-making within an 8-week timeframe. However, many women lack the necessary knowledge and preparation for making informed decisions. Anxiety and unsatisfactory outcomes can result from inadequate decision-making processes, leading to decisional regret and revision surgeries. Shared decision-making and personalized decision aids have shown positive effects on patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes. Here, Breamy, a prototype mobile health application that utilizes augmented reality technology to assist breast cancer patients in making more informed decisions is introduced. Breamy provides 3D visualizations of different surgical procedures, aiming to improve confidence in surgical decision-making, reduce decisional regret, and enhance patient well-being after surgery. To determine the perception of the usefulness of Breamy, data was collected from 166 participants through an online survey. The results suggest that Breamy has the potential to reduce patients' anxiety levels and assist them in decision-making.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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