Development and Pilot Testing of a Decision Aid for Men Considering Genetic Testing for Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer–Related Mutations ( <i>BRCA1/2</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fact that both men and women can carry a breast/ovarian cancer-related mutation, the main emphasis in genetic counseling for breast/ovarian cancer-related risk remains on females. This study aimed to develop and pilot a decision aid specifically designed for men with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer who are considering genetic testing. The decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts and a consumer representative. It was then reviewed by 27 men who had previously undergone genetic testing to identify a mutation in a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene. All men who reviewed the decision aid indicated that they would recommend the booklet to other men in the same situation, and 96% of the sample (n = 26) reported being "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the information contained in the decision aid. The decision aid was perceived by all participants as "very relevant" or "quite relevant" for men considering genetic testing. Ninety-three percent of men felt that it was easy to weigh the pros and cons of genetic testing with the help of the decision aid. The perceived impact on participants' emotions and understanding of the genetic testing process was also assessed. Several factors may hinder men from effectively weighing up the potential benefits and risks of genetic testing. A greater understanding of these issues may help health professionals to encourage men with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer to learn about cancer risk and the appropriate management strategies for themselves and their female relatives.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".