Cancer Worry, Perceived Risk and Cancer Screening in First‐Degree Relatives of Patients with Familial Gastric Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there is a lack of evidence evaluating the psychological impact of cancer-related risk perception and worry in individuals at high risk for gastric cancer. We examined the relationships between perceived risk, cancer worry and screening behaviors among first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with familial gastric cancer. FDRs of patients diagnosed with familial gastric cancer with a non-informative genetic analysis were identified and contacted. Participants completed a telephone interview that assessed socio-demographic information, cancer risk perception, cancer worry, impact of worry on daily functioning, and screening behaviors. Twenty-five FDRs completed the telephone interview. Participants reported high levels of comparative and absolute cancer risk perception, with an average perceived lifetime risk of 54 %. On the other hand, cancer-related worry scores were low, with a significant minority (12 %) experiencing high levels of worry. Study participants exhibited high levels of confidence (median = 70 %) in the effectiveness of screening at detecting a curable cancer. Participants that had undergone screening in the past showed significantly lower levels of cancer-related worry compared to those that had never undergone screening. In conclusion, individuals at high-risk for gastric cancer perceived a very high personal risk of cancer, but reported low levels of cancer worry. This paradoxical result may be attributed to participants' high levels of confidence in the effectiveness of screening. These findings highlight the importance for clinicians to discuss realistic risk appraisals and expectations towards screening with unaffected members of families at risk for gastric cancer, in an effort to help mitigate anxiety and help with coping.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".