Genetic counseling for<i>BRCA1</i>/<i>2</i>: A randomized controlled trial of two strategies to facilitate the education and counseling process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the complexity of information surrounding BRCA1/2 counseling and testing and its time consuming nature, efforts to facilitate the genetic counseling and education process are needed. Using a 2 x 2 factorial design, two strategies were examined: a CD-ROM program for patients and a feedback checklist to the genetic counselor on patients' prior misconceptions. A total of 197 women attending a breast and ovarian cancer risk evaluation clinic for BRCA1/2 counseling were randomized into one of four conditions: standard care, CD-ROM only, feedback to counselor only, and both CD-ROM and feedback. Counseling outcomes included face-to-face time with the genetics team, knowledge acquisition, changes in worry about having a gene mutation, and genetic testing decisions. Overall, women who viewed the CD-ROM spent less time with the genetic counselor and were less likely to undergo genetic testing compared to women who did not view the CD-ROM. Feedback to the genetic counselor resulted in greater gains in knowledge of genetics and breast cancer. Among women less worried at baseline, those who viewed the CD-ROM showed no changes in worry following genetic counseling, in contrast to those who did not view the CD-ROM who increased in worry over time. This latter finding raises concerns about the impact of the increased worry on genetic testing decisions. No interaction effects of the two intervention arms were found. The study results support the importance of both strategies as valuable supplements to clinical BRCA1/2 counseling.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".