Psychosocial Adjustment in School-age Girls With a Family History of Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Understanding how young girls respond to growing up with breast cancer family histories is critical given expansion of genetic testing and breast cancer messaging. We examined the impact of breast cancer family history on psychosocial adjustment and health behaviors among >800 girls in the multicenter LEGACY Girls Study. METHODS: Girls aged 6 to 13 years with a family history of breast cancer or familial BRCA1/2 mutation (BCFH+), peers without a family history (BCFH-), and their biological mothers completed assessments of psychosocial adjustment (maternal report for 6- to 13-year-olds, self-report for 10- to 13-year-olds), breast cancer-specific distress, perceived risk of breast cancer, and health behaviors (10- to 13-year-olds). RESULTS: BCFH+ girls had better general psychosocial adjustment than BCFH- peers by maternal report. Psychosocial adjustment and health behaviors did not differ significantly by self-report among 10- to 13-year-old girls. BCFH+ girls reported higher breast cancer-specific distress (P = .001) and were more likely to report themselves at increased breast cancer risk than BCFH- peers (38.4% vs 13.7%, P < .001), although many girls were unsure of their risk. In multivariable analyses, higher daughter anxiety was associated with higher maternal anxiety and poorer family communication. Higher daughter breast cancer-specific distress was associated with higher maternal breast cancer-specific distress. CONCLUSIONS: Although growing up in a family at risk for breast cancer does not negatively affect general psychosocial adjustment among preadolescent girls, those from breast cancer risk families experience greater breast cancer-specific distress. Interventions to address daughter and mother breast cancer concerns and responses to genetic or familial risk might improve psychosocial outcomes of teen daughters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".