Women's Decision Making about Risk‐Reducing Strategies in the Context of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women who have a mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have up to an 87% lifetime risk of breast cancer and up to a 40% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Cancer prevention and early detection strategies are often considered by these women to address this heightened risk. Risk-reducing strategies include risk-reducing mastectomy and oophorectomy, breast and ovarian cancer screening, and chemoprevention. This systematic literature review summarizes the factors and contexts that influence decision making related to cancer risk-reducing strategies among women at high-risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. In the 43 published research articles reviewed, three main types of factors are identified that influence high-risk women's decisions about risk-reducing strategies: a) medical and physical factors, b) psychological factors and c) social context factors. How these factors operate in women's lives over time remains unknown, and would best be elucidated through prospective, longitudinal research, as well as qualitative research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".