Subjective and Objective Risk of Breast Cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish Individuals at Risk for BRCA1/2 Mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of the study were to (1) examine the differences between subjective and objective estimates of the risk of breast cancer in those being tested for BRCA1/2 mutations, (2) explore new ways to conceptualize risk, and (3) examine the change in subjective risk of developing breast cancer throughout the process of genetic counseling and testing. Participants were 86 Ashkenazi Jewish women with a family or personal history indicating risk for BRCA1/2 mutations. Surveys to assess subjective risk of breast cancer (percentage risk, projected age of onset, and survival time) were administered before counseling, after counseling, and after receipt of test results. Subjective percentage risk of breast cancer was compared to estimated objective risk to determine accuracy. Those with no personal history of cancer receiving positive results became more accurate from post-counseling to post-result. Those receiving positive results increased their estimate of their percentage risk, and those receiving uninformative negative results decreased their estimate of their percentage risk from post-counseling to post-result. Those without a personal history of cancer decreased in perceived risk from post-counseling to post-result. No change in projected age of onset of breast cancer or survival time with breast cancer was seen from pre- to post-counseling or from post-counseling to post-result, and no change in accuracy or in percentage risk of breast cancer was seen from pre- to post-counseling. Individuals use information from genetic counseling to form estimates of percentage risk following receipt of test results; however, projected age of onset and survival time with breast cancer, areas not targeted by genetic counseling that may be more closely linked to health behavior, do not change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".