Should Genetic Testing be Offered for Children? The Perspectives of Adolescents and Emerging Adults in Families with Li‐Fraumeni Syndrome
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether children should be offered genetic testing for cancer risk is much debated but young voices are rarely heard in these conversations. The current study explored perspectives of genetic testing held by adolescents and emerging adults in families with Li Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). Twelve 12- to 25-year-olds in families with LFS completed qualitative interviews for this study. All believed that testing should be offered for children but many qualified this statement saying parental approval would be needed and testing should be optional. Genetic testing was seen as way to learn of risk status, allow for disease prevention efforts, and reduce uncertainty and anxiety. Perceived disadvantages included negative emotions associated with the testing result. Participants generally felt that children should be involved in the testing decision, but that parents could unilaterally decide to have a child tested in certain circumstances (e.g., young age, high risk). All who were aware of having been tested and of their test result (n = 7; 4 positive) said testing had no negative impact on their outlook and they agreed with the decision to undergo testing. Implications of these findings for clinical practice and future research are discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it