MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045905698 · doi:10.1007/s10897-011-9349-x

Validation of a Self‐Concept Scale for Lynch Syndrome in Different Nationalities

2011· article· en· W2045905698 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helle Vendel Petersen, Katarina Domanska, Pär‐Ola Bendahl, Jiahui Wong, Christina Carlsson, Inge Bernstein, Mary Jane Esplen, Mef Nilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryLynch syndromeFeelingPsychologyAnxietyClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Public healthCognitionPsychiatrySocial psychologyMedicineCancerPathologyColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning about hereditary cancer may influence an individual's self-concept, which otherwise represents a complex but stable cognitive structure. Recently, a 20-statement self-concept scale, with subscales related to stigma-vulnerability and bowel symptom-related anxiety, was developed for Lynch syndrome. We compared the performance of this scale in 591 mutation carriers from Denmark, Sweden and Canada. Principal component analysis identified two sets of linked statements-the first related to feeling different, isolated and labeled, and the second to concern and worry about bowel changes. The scale performed consistently in the three countries. Minor differences were identified, with guilt about passing on a defective gene and feelings of losing one's privacy being more pronounced among Canadians, whereas Danes more often expressed worries about cancer. Validation of the Lynch syndrome self-concept scale supports its basic structure, identifies dependence between the statements in the subscales and demonstrates its applicability in different Western populations.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207