Oncogene-driven advocacy: Collective expertise and therapeutic actionability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is intended as a contribution to the social science literature on Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs). It examines the recent emergence and development of cancer patient organizations that self-define as “oncogene-focused,” that is, as centered on tumor-driving genetic mutations that offer novel therapeutic opportunities for tumors to be targeted by precision drugs. Drawing on qualitative methods including interviews with representatives of oncogene focused PAGs, analysis of the groups’ publications (biomedical journals, eNewsletters), websites, and social media activity, the paper explores the characteristics of these PAGs’ forms of activism. It shows that their common denominator is a focus on patient survival. This shared goal translates into a form of activism that centers on therapeutic actionability , that is, a set of initiatives aiming at the articulation of research, clinical trials, and care to improve the patients’ quality of life and maximize survival thanks to awareness of and access to the latest therapies. Beyond individual differences between PAGs, we observe the increasingly seamless entanglement of their activities. Their mutually supportive interventions result in the establishment of an ecosystemic form of activism that also succeeds in mobilizing clinicians and researchers at the increasingly porous interface between research and care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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".