Toward a Population-Based Breast Cancer Risk Stratification Approach? The Needs and Concerns of Healthcare Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the expanding knowledge base in cancer genomics, risk-based screening is among the promising avenues to improve breast cancer (BC) prevention and early detection at the population level. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HPs) regarding the implementation of such an approach and identify tools that can support HPs. After undertaking an in-depth thematic content analysis of the responses, 11 themes were identified. These were embedded into a logical model to distinguish the potential eligible participants (who?), the main clinical activities (how?) and associated tools (what?), the key factors of acceptability (which?), and the expected effects of the strategy (why?). Overall, it was found that the respondents positively welcomed the implementation of this strategy and agreed on some of the benefits that could accrue to women from tailored risk-based screening. Some important elements, however, deserve clarification. The results also highlight three main conditions that should be met to foster the acceptability of BC risk stratification: respecting the principle of equity, paying special attention to knowledge management, and rethinking human resources to capitalize on the strengths of the current workforce. Because the functioning of BC risk-based screening is not yet well defined, important planning work is required before advancing this organizational innovation, and outstanding issues must be resolved to get HPs on board.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".