MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133003642

Primary care providers' experiences with and perceptions of personalized genomic medicine

2016· article· en· W7133003642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carroll JC, Makuwaza T, Manca DP

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary carePerceptionGenomic medicinePersonalized medicineQualitative researchPrimary health carePrecision medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To assess primary care providers' (PCPs') experiences with, perceptions of, and desired role in personalized medicine, with a focus on cancer.Design Qualitative study involving focus groups. Setting Urban and rural interprofessional primary care team practices in Alberta and Ontario. Participants Fifty-one PCPs.Methods Semistructured focus groups were conducted and audiorecorded.Recordings were transcribed and analyzed using techniques informed by grounded theory including coding, interpretations of patterns in the data, and constant comparison. Main findingsFive focus groups with the 51 participants were conducted; 2 took place in Alberta and 3 in Ontario.Primary care providers described limited experience with personalized medicine, citing breast cancer and prenatal care as main areas of involvement.They expressed concern over their lack of knowledge, in some circumstances relying on personal experiences to inform their attitudes and practice.Participants anticipated an inevitable role in personalized medicine primarily because patients seek and trust their advice; however, there was underlying concern about the magnitude of information and pace of discovery in this area, particularly in direct-to-consumer personal genomic testing.Increased knowledge, closer ties to genetics specialists, and relevant, reliable personalized medicine resources accessible at the point of care were reported as important for successful implementation of personalized medicine. ConclusionPrimary care providers are prepared to discuss personalized medicine, but they require better resources.Models of care that support a more meaningful relationship between PCPs and genetics specialists should be pursued.Continuing education strategies need to address knowledge gaps including direct-to-consumer genetic testing, a relatively new area provoking PCP concern.Primary care providers should be mindful of using personal experiences to guide 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicBRCA gene mutations in cancer→French-language works237,207→