Attitudinal concordance toward uptake and disclosure of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility in patient–family member dyads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decisions for cancer susceptibility genetic testing (CSGT) uptake and dissemination of results occur within the family context. A national survey was performed with 990 patient-family member dyads (participation rate:76.2%), with paired questionnaires examining attitudes toward CSGT uptake and disclosure of results in response to a hypothetical scenario in which a reliable CSGT was available for the specific cancer a patient was being treated. While most patients and family members responded they would uptake or recommend CSGT if available, concordance between the dyads was poor for both patient's testing (agreement rate 77.5%, weighted κ=0.09) and first-degree relatives' testing(agreement rate 78.0%, weighted κ=0.09). Most patients (93.2%) and family members (92.9%) indicated that patients should disclose positive CSGT results to family members, with dyadic agreement of 89.1% (κ=0.15). However, there were substantial disagreement regarding when disclosure should take place, who should make the disclosure (the patient or the health care professionals), and to whom the results should be disclosed. Patients and family members may hold different attitudes toward CSGT uptake of and disclosure of results within the family. Our findings reinforce the need for a family system approach to incorporate perspectives of patients as well as their family members.
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".