Death Anxiety in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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
Context: Death anxiety (DA) is a common experience in many patients with breast cancer (BC) that affects their quality of life. Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the mean of DA in patients with BC using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. Data Sources: An extensive search was conducted in English electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and Embase, up to the end of December 2024. The search aimed to gather all studies reporting the mean of DA in patients with BC, ensuring a comprehensive collection of relevant literature without time limitations. Study Selection: The inclusion criteria focused on studies that reported the mean of DA in patients with BC and were published in English. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), ensuring that only high-quality studies were considered for the meta-analysis. Data Extraction: Data were meticulously extracted from the selected studies, emphasizing the mean of DA and other pertinent metrics. A meta-analysis was then performed using the random-effects DerSimonian-Laird model, and publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Begg's and Egger's tests. Results: A total of 789 studies were found in the extensive search of electronic databases. Nine articles were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Four studies were conducted in Iran, two in China, and one in Pakistan, Turkey, and Palestine. All of the included studies were cross-sectional and published between 2017 and 2024. In total, this meta-analysis included 6 articles. The pooled mean of DA in BC patients was 9.96 [confidence interval (CI): 7.99 - 11.93, I2 = 99.69, P < 0.001]. Conclusions: This study showed that the mean of DA is high among BC patients. Therefore, it is recommended to use supportive and psychological measures in comprehensive oncology care to control this challenge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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