Implications of risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy among breast cancer susceptibility gene carriers: well-being and function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy (RRBM) is the most effective method for reducing the risk of breast cancer in women with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations. There’s a paucity of knowledge regarding the broad implications of the surgery. This study aims to investigate RRBM’s effect on women’s activities of daily living, physical function, body image, and well-being. Methods: In total, 46 BRCA mutation carriers (n = 22 underwent RRBM; n = 24 control group) participated. Participants answered online questionnaires such as Quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand, Personal Well-being Index, WHODAS, Body Image Scale, and McGill Pain Questionnaire. Findings: Women who underwent RRBM reported a decline in body image and intimacy. However, they described improved health-related well-being and less fear of cancer than the control group. Women felt that there was insufficient support in the complex physical and functional recovery from the surgery. Conclusions: Most women felt the advantages of the surgery; however, it appears that more professional assistance focusing on daily living and physical function could be valuable in the recovery process.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".