Perceptions of Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients on genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perceived benefits and risks of genetic testing may vary between groups of individuals with different cultural, demographic, and family history features. This multicentre study examined the factors that influenced the decision to undergo genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Canadian Jewish women with breast cancer. A self-administered questionnaire was developed and distributed to 134 individuals enrolled in a research-based testing program for Ashkenazi women. The questionnaire assessed demographic, social, and family history parameters, and the influence of medical, family, social, psychological, and cultural/religious factors on decision making about genetic testing. Seventy-six percent of women completed the questionnaire. Forty-one percent of study participants had no family history of breast or ovarian cancer. The most important factors influencing the decision to undergo testing were a desire to contribute to research, potential benefit to other family members, curiosity, and the potential for relief if not found to be a carrier (endorsed by 87, 78, 70, and 60% of participants, respectively). The main perceived risks of undergoing genetic testing related to insurance discrimination, confidentiality, accuracy and interpretability of results, potential impact on marriage prospects for family members, and focus on the Jewish community (endorsed by 28, 24, 30, 17, and 14% of participants, respectively). This study provides novel information on the motivating factors for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing in Canadian women of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. The focus on altruistic factors and those related to perceived psychological benefits of testing is notable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".