Using the Impact of Event Scale to Evaluate Distress in the Context of Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Susceptibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The data obtained with two forms of the Impact of Event Scale were compared, one referring to a BRCA1/2 test result (IES-T) and another to cancer (IES-C). The sample consisted of 272 women with a family history suggestive of a BRCA1/2 mutation who underwent genetic testing and received results: noncarrier, carrier, or inconclusive. Globally, mean scores on the IES-C form were higher than those obtained on the IES-T form. Among carriers of a BRCA1/2 mutation, mean scores on the two forms were similar and agreement was good, as measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient (.83; 95% 95% CI=.72, .91). Agreement between the forms was poor to fair among noncarriers (ICC= .38; CI= .15, .57) and women with an inconclusive result (ICC= .40; 95% CI= .26, .52). Having had cancer increased total scores but had little influence on agreement between scores on forms. These findings highlight the importance of carefully selecting the form of the Impact of Event Scale in the context of genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".