MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408158888 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2025.1481863

Genetic discrimination in insurance and employment based on personalized risk stratification for breast cancer screening

2025· article· en· W4408158888 on OpenAlexaffabout
Manuela Reveiz, Sarah Bouhouita-Guermech, Kristina M. Blackmore, Jocelyne Chiquette, Éric Demers, Michel Dorval, Laurence Lambert-Côté, Hermann Nabi, Nora Pashayan, Penny Soucy, Annie Turgeon, Meghan J. Walker, Bartha Maria Knoppers, Anna M. Chiarelli, Jacques Simard, Yann Joly

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesUniversité LavalCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk stratificationBreast cancerMedicineStratification (seeds)Risk assessmentPersonalized medicineOncologyInternal medicineActuarial scienceCancerBusinessComputer scienceBioinformaticsBiologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) incorporates the effects of common genetic variants, from polygenic risk scores, pathogenic variants in major breast cancer (BC) susceptibility genes, lifestyle/hormonal risk factors, mammographic density, and cancer family history to predict risk levels of developing breast and ovarian cancer. While offering multifactorial risk assessment to the population could be a promising avenue for early detection of BC, obstacles to its implementation including fear of genetic discrimination (GD), could prevent individuals from undergoing screening. Methods: The aim of our study was two-fold: determine the extent of legal protection in Canada available to protect information generated by risk prediction models such as the BOADICEA algorithm through a literature review, and then, assess individuals' knowledge of and concerns about GD in this context by collecting data through surveys. Results: Our legal analysis highlighted that while Canadian employment and privacy laws provide a good level of protection against GD, it remains uncertain whether the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GNDA) would provide protection for BC risk levels generated by a risk prediction model. The survey results of 3,055 participants who consented to risk assessment in the PERSPECTIVE I&I project showed divergent perspectives of how the law would protect BC risk level in the context of employment and that a high number of participants did not feel that their risk level was protected from access and use by life insurers. Indeed, 49,1% of participants reckon that the level of breast cancer risk could have an impact on a woman's ability to buy insurance and 58,9% of participants reckon that a woman's insurance might be cancelled if important health information (including level of breast cancer risk) is not given when buying or renewing life or health insurance. Conclusion: The results indicate that much work needs to be done to improve and clarify the extent of protection against GD in Canada and to inform the population of how the legal framework applies to risk levels generated by risk prediction models.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207