Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Prophylactic mastectomy is an option for women who are at high-risk of developing breast cancer. The purposes of this study were; to describe the patterns of practice of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in Ontario; to compare the perceptions of breast cancer risk with objective estimates of risk in women following preventive surgery; to assess the current psychosocial functioning of women who had previously had a bilateral prophylactic mastectomy; and to determine the predictors of quality of life following surgery. Methods. Women in the province of Ontario who had undergone prophylactic mastectomy between 1991 and 2000 were identified. Indications and details regarding the surgery were collected during a medical chart review. The women were contacted and asked to complete questionnaires that examined risk assessment and current levels of psychosocial functioning. Results. Annual frequencies of prophylactic mastectomy in Ontario range from six to nineteen women. Some of the women who had the surgery performed were not at a significantly high risk of developing breast cancer. Most of the women greatly over-estimated their risk of developing breast cancer, with the exception of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Overall, the women were satisfied with their decision to have preventive breast surgery. The majority of women were within normal ranges for the various domains of psychosocial functioning that were measured (sexual functioning, psychological distress, cancer-related distress, and body image). Women who continued to over-estimate their risk of developing breast cancer were more likely to be experiencing psychological distress. The mean level of quality of life was slightly above the mean level for the general population. The two most important predictors of quality of life were psychological distress and vulnerability. Conclusions. Prophylactic bilateral mastectomy is a relatively rare procedure in Ontario. The indications for surgery were not always adequate, but the decision to have surgery may have been the result of an exaggerated personal risk of developing breast cancer. Women who have prophylactic bilateral mastectomy are not experiencing decreased quality of life or low levels of psychosocial functioning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".