MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410390708 · doi:10.1200/po-24-00821

Factors Affecting Genomic Testing in Prostate Cancer: Results From the Decision-Making, Experience, and Confidence In Determining Genomic Evaluation (DECIDE) Survey

2025· article· en· W4410390708 on OpenAlexaff
Rhonda L. Bitting, Christopher McNair, Alexander W. Wyatt, Gillian Vandekerkhove, Taehwa Choi, Amy Leader, Joshua Blanding-Godbolt, Laura Gross, Khaldoun Hamade, Susan Halabi, Veda N. Giri

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Precision Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalGenetic testingMedicineDescriptive statisticsHealth careLow ConfidenceGenomic informationFamily medicinePsychologyInternal medicineGenomeStatisticsGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Genomic testing for prostate cancer (PCa) clinical management and hereditary cancer assessment has grown in clinical impact; however, challenges remain regarding optimal implementation and end-user confidence. The Decision-making, Experience, and Confidence In Determining Genomic Evaluation (DECIDE) survey was designed to collect information regarding utility and understanding of genomic testing from PCa health care providers, researchers, and stakeholders. METHODS: The DECIDE survey was administered online from October 2022 to January 2023 with 18 multiple-response questions. Survey domains included self-confidence with ordering and interpreting germline and somatic genomic tests, process of testing and use of results, decision-making factors, and barriers to testing. Data were summarized by evaluating counts and percentages of responses, and the results were presented by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two participants completed the survey. The majority were medical oncologists (70%) and at academic medical centers (89%). Self-confidence was high in knowing indications for genomic testing (82% respondents) but lower in interpretation of results, especially from circulating tumor DNA (52%). Confidence varied in interpreting pathogenic variants (65% high confidence), variants of unknown significance (47%), and incidental findings from genomic tests (35%). Common barriers to testing were difficulty obtaining tissue (71%) and cost (35%). Testing utility was sometimes limited by inability to obtain the recommended treatment (33%). Most of the respondents (55%) agreed that lack of education and training of health care professionals regarding genomic testing is impeding clinical translation. CONCLUSION: The DECIDE survey provided critical insights into challenges with genomic testing, from provider confidence in interpretating results to testing and practice barriers. The results inform next steps to further educate PCa providers and to collectively improve testing and result reporting for enhanced implementation of PCa genomic 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Precision OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207