MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995854866 · doi:10.1188/10.onf.627-634

Conditions and Consequences of a <i>BRCA</i> Mutation in Young, Single Women of Childbearing Age

2010· article· en· W1995854866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebekah Hamilton, Karen Hurley

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineBRCA mutationBreast cancerYoung adultGrounded theoryQualitative researchGynecologyCancerGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of young, single women who are at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) because of a BRCA mutation. RESEARCH APPROACH: Qualitative. SETTING: Seven states and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 11 single women aged 18-35 years who tested positive for a BRCA mutation. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Grounded theory with in-depth individual interviews conducted via e-mail or telephone. FINDINGS: Analysis resulted in three conditions and three consequences. Conditions were dating or not dating, time in a relationship, and physical impact of surgery or breast cancer treatment. Consequences were explaining their choices, experiencing a sense of urgency, and experiencing a sense of loss. CONCLUSIONS: Young women who are at risk for HBOC face a complex array of decisions after finding out that they carry a BRCA mutation. Being single and childless adds to this complexity. INTERPRETATION: Nurses can listen to young women with HBOC risk, help them clarify their fears and understanding of their risk, and provide nonthreatening support that goes beyond simply providing more information and includes a nonjudgmental understanding of the young women's experience.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207