Pelvic floor muscle function and symptoms associated in patients with breast cancer using tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and healthy controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The estrogen reduction caused by endocrine therapy can lead to symptoms associated with pelvic floor dysfunction in patients with breast cancer. Identifying medication-related symptoms can help prevent or mitigate adverse effects.Purpose The objective of this study was to compare pelvic floor muscle function among women treated with tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and cancer-free controls.Methods Cross-sectional observational study comparing three groups of women: tamoxifen users, aromatase inhibitor users, and healthy controls. Pelvic floor muscle function was assessed through vaginal inspection and palpation. Symptoms of dysfunction and vaginal complaints were evaluated through the Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire and Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms Module. Descriptive statistics included frequencies and medians. Group comparisons used Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Associations were assessed via odds ratios, Chi-square, Phi coefficient, and Spearman’s correlation. Multiple correspondence analysis, multiple linear regression, and binary logistic regression were also performed.Results Ninety-three women were included − 31 in each group. A significantly higher prevalence of descended perineum was observed in the aromatase inhibitors group compared to the tamoxifen and control groups (12.9% vs 0% vs 0% respectively, p = .034). The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse was higher in the groups on endocrine therapy (IA 19.4%, TAM 16.1%, control 0%, p = .037). The remaining pelvic floor muscle functions and dysfunctions were similar between the groups, as was the associated bother.Conclusion Women treated with endocrine therapy showed a higher prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse, with a descended perineum observed in the aromatase inhibitor group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".