No Evidence of False Reassurance among Women with an Inconclusive <i>BRCA1/2</i> Genetic Test Result
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how women who receive an inconclusive result from BRCA1/2 testing interpret their result. Clinical observations suggest that some of them may be falsely reassured and, consequently, may not adhere to recommended surveillance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether women with inconclusive BRCA1/2 test results are falsely reassured. METHODS: Participants were adult women with a family history suggestive of a germ-line mutation in either the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene who underwent genetic testing in the context of the interdisciplinary research program INHERIT BRCAs. Data were collected using self-administered questionnaires at genetic counseling and 1 month after result disclosure. Reassurance was assessed through indicators of cancer risk perception, cancer worry, relief following result disclosure, painfulness of the test result, and its effect on quality of life. RESULTS: Five-hundred women (105 carriers, 140 noncarriers, and 255 inconclusive) were included in this analysis. Compared to noncarriers, women with inconclusive results had higher cancer risk perception, were more worried about cancer, were less relieved by their test result, and perceived their quality of life as being more adversely affected by it. CONCLUSION: The differences observed between noncarriers and women who received an inconclusive result run counter to the hypothesis that the latter are falsely reassured following BRCA1/2 testing. For clinicians, our findings show the value of taking precautions to fully explain to women that inconclusive results do not rule out the possibility that they still may face a higher risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".