Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In families where genetic testing for the breast cancer 1 and 2 genes (BRCA1/2) has not identified a deleterious mutation, the risk for hereditary breast cancer (HBC) can still be high when there is a strong family history. Little is known about how an awareness of risk for HBC impacts the everyday lives of unaffected women (no personal history for breast and/or ovarian cancer) in these families. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore how unaffected women, living in BRCA1/2-negative families, experience living with risk for HBC. METHODS: van Manen's hermeneutic phenomenological approach guided this study. Unaffected at-risk women were recruited from a hereditary breast and ovarian cancer clinic in Western Canada. RESULTS: Nine women participated in 20 open-ended conversations. Phenomenological reflection on the 4 life existentials (lived space, body, time, and relations) revealed "Moving In and Out of the What-Ifs" as an overarching description that was communicated through the following themes: "Just Moving Along: Living a Normal Life," "Moving Into Those Dark Spaces," "Is there Something Wrong With Me"? "Markings in Time," "Living in the Moment," "Being Cared For," and "Keeping Me Grounded." CONCLUSIONS: The findings reveal how knowledge from predictive medicine impacts the lives of women and the importance of supportive relations and provides a foundation for future research into how health is perceived. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings inform the practices of healthcare professionals as they engage in discussions with women living with risk for HBC and highlight the importance of a supportive relationship.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".