MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993360058 · doi:10.1002/nur.20286

Receiving inconclusive genetic test results: An interpretive description of the BRCA1/2 experience

2008· article· en· W1993360058 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Nursing & Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic testingMeaning (existential)Test (biology)Breast cancerOvarian cancerGenetic counselingMedicinePsychologyCancerGynecologyInternal medicineGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the experience of 21 women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer who received inconclusive BRCA1/2 genetic test results. Although these women received similar information on the technical meaning of an inconclusive result, their interpretations of personal risk for a probable, inherited cancer mutation differed. Their interpretations ranged from confidence that they probably carried an undetected gene mutation to believing that their cancer had no genetic basis. Women drew from their personal experience with genetic testing and from distinctive perceptions and beliefs in attempting to understand their test results; they variously drew upon such evidence as observations of similarities and differences within familial breast/ovarian cancer patterns to explain their ultimate conclusions as to their own genetic status.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it