MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087699546 · doi:10.1089/gtmb.2008.0126

Identification of Patients at High Risk of Psychological Distress After <i>BRCA1</i> Genetic Testing

2009· article· en· W2087699546 on OpenAlexaff
Sławomir Ertmański, Kelly Metcalfe, Janusz Trempała, Maria Danuta Głowacka, Jan Lubiński, Steven A. Narod, Jacek Gronwald

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic testingAnxietyDistressGenetic counselingMedicineClinical psychologyDepression (economics)CancerPsychiatryTest (biology)Internal medicineGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To predict which women might suffer from abnormally high levels of anxiety and depression after receiving a positive genetic BRCA1 test result, series of pregenetic testing and postgenetic testing psychological measurements were performed. Of 3524 women who returned the psychological test sheets before receiving their genetic test result, 111 women were found to carry a BRCA1 mutation. We found that overall, anxiety does not increase in women who receive a positive BRCA1 genetic test result; however, women who experience high levels of anxiety before genetic testing continue to experience high levels of anxiety up to 1 year posttesting. There were differences in cancer-related distress in affected and unaffected women. BRCA1 carriers with a previous diagnosis of cancer had significantly higher levels of cancer-related distress at 1 month posttest than those without cancer. Our findings suggest that healthcare providers should consider including a brief pretest psychological assessment before initiating genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetic Testing and Molecular BiomarkersSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207