DNA sequencing in oncology: a focus group study on a duty to recontact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Particularly in genetics, former results can gain new meaning in the course of time. This raises questions about when professionals should recontact patients with new information. The aim of this focus group study is to clarify how different stakeholders in oncology think about the extent and limits of a duty to recontact.Materials and methods One focus group with oncology patients (n = 12) and two groups with healthcare professionals (total n = 13) were conducted. In general, there was support for recontacting patients. The scope and extent of this duty was, however, perceived differently. Differences and similarities on the following six contextual factors are discussed: information features, costs and efforts, personal preferences, who is contacted, clinic or research setting, and time.Discussion Oncology patients were clear in their wish to receive updates while the professionals were more hesitant to consider recontact as a standard of care. This is not surprising as recontacting patients with new information would mean a shift from a patient-initiated approach toward an information-initiated approach. This entails a different way of offering healthcare. Furthermore, the question is not only what professionals’ responsibilities are, but how to design a system that complies with patients’ wishes to receive updates.
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 | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".