MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528829871 · doi:10.1097/ncc.0000000000000438

Moving In and Out of the What-Ifs

2016· article· en· W2528829871 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dawn Schroeder, Wendy Duggleby, Brenda L. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHermeneutic phenomenologyGrounded theoryHealth professionalsEveryday lifeQualitative researchFamily historyHealth careFamily medicineLived experienceGerontologyCancerPsychologyPsychotherapistSociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer NursingSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207