Health care provider recommendations for reducing cancer risks among women with a <i> BRCA1</i> or <i>BRCA2</i> mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a significant variation in the uptake of cancer risk reducing options by women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. It is currently unclear why these differences exist and it is possible that recommendations vary between providers and these influence patient decisions. Eligible health care providers who provide genetic counseling for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer families in Canada were identified. Each provider was asked to complete a study specific questionnaire that included their opinion of various cancer risk reduction options and their recommendations for specific cases. Respondents recommended prophylactic oophorectomy more often than prophylactic mastectomy or tamoxifen for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (p < 0.0001). Fewer than half of the respondents agreed with the recommendation for prophylactic mastectomy, and a minority of the respondents supported the recommendation for tamoxifen for chemoprevention. The majority of Canadian genetics health care providers adhere to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guideline of recommending prophylactic oophorectomy to mutation carriers, however, the minority of genetics health care providers recommend either prophylactic mastectomy or tamoxifen.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".