Should Breast Cancer Patients Be The Focus Of Anti-Smoking Campaigns In Transitional Countries?
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
INTRODUCTIONStudies have shown that breast cancer patients who smoke during cancertreatment, along with a higher symptom burden, exhibit a dramatically higher risk of distant metastasis (up to HR 4.19) and death (up to HR 3.52)1. The majority of studies report that only 8-14% breast cancer survivors smoke, although recent research shows lowsmokingcessation in breast cancer patients in Western population after cancer diagnosis. Currently, although around 30% of females in Croatia are active smokers, no analysis regardingsmokingcessation has been made.METHODSThe study was cross-sectional research in two clinical hospital centers in Croatia and involved 168 breast cancer patients undergoing activetreatment.RESULTSBreast cancer patients are relatively young (57.6u00b111.31 years) and rarely metastatic (22%). Only around a quarter of breast cancer patients smoked at the time of cancer diagnosis. However, 96% of breast cancer patients continue to smoke after a cancer diagnosis, although the percentage of patients who smoke over ten cigarettes a day dropped from 70% to 36%. However, these numbers are higher compared to other patients and are much higher than previously reported for the Western population.CONCLUSIONAlthough breast cancer patients are expected to exhibit relatively long survival compared to othercancers, they are one of the patient groups least likely to engage insmokingcessation during thetreatment, possibly due to low perceived risk. With new research emphasizing the dangers ofsmokingduring cancertreatment, breast cancer patients should be one of the focus groups, especially intransitionalcountrieswith a high number of female smokers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.001 |
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