A Design Analysis of Bras and Prostheses for Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A breast cancer diagnosis may involve surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and hormone treatment. Our study used a qualitative approach to identify key design criteria to better inform product development. Precedent analysis of bras and prostheses (n=31), and interviews with breast cancer survivors (n=2), mastectomy fitters (n=2) and an anaplastologist (n=1) provided information on bra style variety, design features, material composition, closure type, functional aspects, cup coverage and shape, straps, closure mechanisms and overall fit as well as material, volume, shape, aesthetic appeal, nipple design, attachment mechanisms, and customization options. Recommendations include the pursuit of material innovation for enhanced comfort, offering a variety of bra styles and closure options for both functionality and aesthetic appeal, and ensuring consistent sizing for a more accurate fit. For prostheses, recommendations include adjustable volume, a spectrum of shapes, skin tones and nipples to better match individual physiques, as well as the use of temperature-regulating materials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".