Parent decision‐making around the genetic testing of children for germline <i>TP53</i> mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a rare genetic cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline TP53 mutations. Up to 20% of mutation carriers develop cancer during childhood. The benefits of TP53 mutation testing of children are a matter of debate and knowledge of parent decision-making around such testing is limited. The current study examined how parents make decisions regarding TP53 testing for their children. METHODS: Families offered and those pursuing TP53 testing for their children were identified across the study sites. Qualitative interviews with 46 parents (39 families) were analyzed to describe decision-making styles and perceived advantages and disadvantages of testing. RESULTS: TP53 mutation testing uptake was high (92%). Three decision-making styles emerged. Automatic decisions (44% of decisions) involved little thought and identified immediate benefit(s) in testing (100% pursued testing). Considered decisions (49%) weighed the risks and benefits but were made easily (77% pursued testing). Deliberated decisions (6%) were difficult and focused on psychosocial concerns (25% pursued testing). Perceived advantages of testing included promoting child health, satisfying a "need to know," understanding why cancer(s) occurred, suggesting family member risk, and benefiting research. Disadvantages included psychosocial risks and privacy/discrimination/insurance issues. CONCLUSIONS: Although empirical evidence regarding the benefits and risks of TP53 testing during childhood are lacking, the majority of parents in the current study decided easily in favor of testing and perceived a range of advantages. The authors conclude that in the context of a clinical diagnosis of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, parents should continue to be offered TP53 testing for their children, counseled regarding potential risks and benefits, and supported in their decision-making process.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".