Preserving the Self: The Process of Decision Making About Hereditary Breast Cancer and Ovarian Cancer Risk Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) gene mutations have up to an 88% lifetime risk of breast cancer and up to a 65% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer. Strategies to address these risks include cancer screening and risk-reducing surgery (i.e., mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy). We conducted a grounded theory study with 22 BRCA1/2 mutation-carrier women to understand how women make decisions about these risk-reducing strategies. Preserving the self was the overarching decision-making process evident in the participants' descriptions. This process was shaped by contextual conditions including the characteristics of health services, the nature of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk-reduction decisions, gendered roles, and the women's perceived proximity to cancer. The women engaged in five decision-making styles, and these were characterized by the use of specific decision-making approaches. These findings provide theoretical insights that could inform the provision of decisional support to BRCA1/2 carriers.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".