Factors associated with perceptions of meeting, and actually meeting,Canada's Food Guide recommendations for fruits and vegetables among breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare breast cancer survivors' (BCS; N=169) body mass index (BMI), perceived competence in maintaining a healthy diet, value for a healthy diet, and diet- and weight-related stressors, across four discrepancy groups. The groups were created based on the discrepancy between perceptions of meeting, and actually meeting, Canada's Food Guide (CFG) recommendations for fruits and vegetables (FV). The study also described healthcare professional (HCP) involvement in providing nutritional advice after treatment and explored whether perceptions of meeting CFG recommendations were associated with HCP involvement. The discrepancy groups did not differ significantly in terms of BMI (p=0.26), diet-related stressors (p=0.84) and weight-related stressors (p=0.27); however two of the four groups differed significantly with regards to perceived diet competence and value of a healthy diet. Survivors who perceived they met CFG recommendations and actually met them had higher perceived diet competence (p=0.001) and placed more value on healthy eating (p=0.004) than those who perceived they did not, and actually did not, meet recommendations. Lastly, 43% of survivors reported that HCP had not provided them with any nutritional information after treatment. Those who perceived they met CFG recommendations did not differ significantly from those who perceived they were not meeting recommendations with regards to reports of HCP involvement in nutrition care (p=0.36). These results suggest that BCS who perceive they are meeting CFG recommendations and actually meet them place more value on healthy eating and are more confident in their ability to maintain a healthy diet after cancer treatment. In addition, the findings suggests that there is room to improve the delivery of nutrition information to BCS, and HCP need to play a more prominent role after treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".