Physician knowledge, use, and perceptions of genetic biomarker testing for the management of patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer: an international physician survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore physician-reported knowledge, use, and perceptions of genetic testing for advanced ovarian cancer management. MATERIALS & METHODS: = 390) in the US, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia completed an online survey spanning March 2021 to April 2022. RESULTS: Physician-reported breast cancer gene mutation (BRCAm) testing rates increased over the 2 years before the survey; most patients underwent testing in the preceding 6 months. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) genomic instability testing rates and physicians' confidence interpreting results remained relatively low. Genetic testing was driven by the associated treatment implications of the findings. Poor performance status, inadequate tissue, and patients' willingness to undergo testing were reported barriers to testing. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that there is a need to improve both access to and information about HRD testing.
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".