Colorectal cancer survivors undergoing genetic testing for hereditary non‐polyposis colorectal cancer: motivational factors and psychosocial functioning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) represents about 1-3% of all cases of colorectal cancer (CRC). The objectives of the study were to examine motivational factors, expectations and psychosocial functioning in a sample of CRC survivors undergoing genetic testing for HNPCC. A cross-sectional survey of 314 colorectal cancer patients recruited through a population-based colon cancer family registry was conducted. Motivations for genetic testing for hereditary cancer were similar to those of clinic-based samples of CRC patients and included learning of the increased risk to offspring and finding out if additional screening was needed. While age at diagnosis and sex were associated with psychological functioning, significant predictors of post-counseling distress were perceived lower satisfaction with social support, an escape-avoidant coping style and the anticipation of becoming depressed if a mutation was present. Most cancer survivors anticipated disclosing test results to relatives and physicians. Cancer survivors reported several motivations for genetic testing for HNPCC that varied by sex. A subgroup of survivors with lower satisfaction with social support and an escape-avoidant coping style were worried about the potential impact of genetic test results and demonstrated more distress following counseling. Findings have implications for future research and potential support needs during the genetic counseling and testing process.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it