MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401854756 · doi:10.34119/bjhrv7n4-379

Impacto da reconstrução mamária pós mastectomia em pacientes oncológicas

2024· article· pt· W4401854756 on OpenAlexaff
Júlia Naomi Tamanaha, Ana Clara Zukauskas Lima Santos, Antonio Augusto Loureiro de Moraes, BRENO PRODOSSIMO MATHIAS, Carolina Ferreira Gama Pinto, Fernanda Firmiano Casarotto, Júlia de Freitas Silva, Matheus Mascaro Serzedo, Wagner Pablo Corrêa

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Health Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicWomen's cancer prevention and management
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGynecologyHumanitiesMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este trabalho explora o impacto social e psicológico da reconstrução mamária pós-mastectomia em pacientes oncológicas. O câncer de mama é mais incidente no mundo, e a mastectomia é uma abordagem terapêutica comum, mas que pode impactar negativamente na autoimagem e na qualidade de vida das pacientes. A reconstrução mamária é reconhecida por melhorar a autoestima, feminilidade e reduzir transtornos psíquicos. A revisão bibliográfica destaca os benefícios desse procedimento, incluindo avanços cirúrgicos e a importância de suporte multidisciplinar. No entanto, ainda existem desafios, como a falta de informação e acesso a tratamentos adequados. É necessário intensificar pesquisas focadas em estratégias de conscientização e acesso para garantir que todas as mulheres possam usufruir dos benefícios da reconstrução mamária.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Health ReviewSame topicWomen's cancer prevention and managementFrench-language works237,207