MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408378142 · doi:10.1016/j.gore.2025.101719

Psychological impact of risk-reducing surgery for gynecologic cancer among women with Lynch syndrome

2025· article· en· W4408378142 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Helen Huband, Kaitlin McGarragle, Crystal Hare, Melyssa Aronson, Tom Ward, Kara Semotiuk, Sarah E. Ferguson, Zane Cohen, Tae L. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic Oncology Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSinai Health SystemToronto Metropolitan University
FundersToronto Metropolitan University
KeywordsMedicineGynecologic cancerLynch syndromeEndometrial cancerGeneral surgeryCancerOvarian cancerGynecologySurgeryInternal medicineColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Facilitators to RRS include burden of cancer screening, desire for less cancer worry, and trust in healthcare providers. • Women with LS require more information on what to expect post-RRS regarding physical symptoms. • More education about the risks and benefits of hormone replacement therapy was desired. • Participants had unmet informational needs about impact of RRS on risk of osteoporosis, heart disease and breast cancer. Prophylactic total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy are risk-reducing surgeries (RRS) that can be offered to women with Lynch syndrome (LS) as they reduce the incidence of ovarian and endometrial cancer. Few studies have examined facilitators to RRS or the experiences of women with LS post-surgery. This qualitative study explored the experiences of women with LS who underwent RRS. Women with LS who had undergone RRS within the prior 10 years were recruited from a genetic cancer registry and a tertiary care medical centre in Canada. Participants completed interviews over the phone. A qualitative descriptive methodological approach was taken, and interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Fifteen participants completed interviews. Themes identified included: 1) facilitators to RRS including desire for peace of mind, completed family planning, presence of physical symptoms associated with gynecological cancer, burden of screening, personal or family history of cancer, age, and trust in healthcare providers (HCPs); 2) women’s experiences with RRS including post-surgical recovery, long-term physical changes post-surgery, impact of surgery on sexual health, psychological impacts of managing risk, and post-surgical care from HCPs; 3) experiences managing menopausal symptoms and use of hormone replacement therapy; and 4) unmet informational needs including managing expectations prior to surgery, understanding risk related to other health conditions, and questions about the ongoing need for gynecological cancer surveillance. HCPs should consider facilitators to surgery in women with LS contemplating RRS. HCPs should also provide women with LS more detailed post-surgery information on what to expect, and risks of other health conditions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic Oncology ReportsSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207