Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A. Introduction The last few years have seen a rapid growth in the discovery of genes associated with hereditary disease or susceptibility, and an accompanying rise in the number of genetic tests becoming available. While most Canadians likely still access genetic testing through the public system, there is also a small developing private market. As more tests become available for conditions of greater general incidence, e.g., heart disease or the common cancers, there is every likelihood that the market will expand. [1] Genetic testing will provide information about individual risk for disease that may permit people to make lifestyle changes to reduce risk, make career planning decisions, or take prophylactic measures, and for those already affected, may allow for individualized therapy. [2] However, private provision may lead to premature access to unproven technologies, while marketing might minimize the uncertainties associated with testing, [3] support a reductionist view of disease and disability, [4] and inflate public anxiety to increase demand. [5] A private market also has serious implications for the Canadian public health care system. [6] Private companies will profit from overhead services without contributing to funding or development, [7] draw experienced professionals from the public to the private sector thereby reducing quality and lengthening waitlists, and increase demand for counselling and medical treatments. Despite these concerns, we currently do not have good mechanisms for controlling the development of a private market. More generally, we also lack good criteria for determining what health care services should or should not receive public funding -- the determination of health care funding is the result of an ad hoc rather than a rational decision making process. In 1999, a small interdisciplinary group of academics, clinicians, business representatives and a member of the public met to discuss the role of privately financed genetic testing in Canada. Out of this workshop was developed a paper by Caulfield, Burgess, Williams-Jones, et al., [8] that outlined an analytic framework of six thresholds to help support more rationalized decision making in the funding of genetic services. The first four thresholds determine whether anyone should receive the service: whether the test morally acceptable; whether it identifies a genetic factor; whether the test useful; and whether the test harmful. The last two thresholds consider whether the service should be financed with public monies or be available for private purchase. The goal here is to provide a summary of the larger paper that highlights its key points and recommendations. B. Thresholds 1-4: Which Tests are Acceptable? At any point in the development of a genetic test, we may decide as a society that the goals or consequences are morally objectionable and thus restricted access or prohibition of the test is warranted. We must also consider the adverse implications, for example, on potentially useful research or on economic development. This first threshold evokes questions of which values will be considered relevant, and how and by whom they will be expressed. What is the commercial influence on the way economic, technology and public policy are developed? Is public input valued only if it is educated about the technical aspects of genetic testing? Adequately addressing these questions will require further research and development of effective public participation mechanisms. It should also be noted that regardless of whether a particular genetic test is prohibited locally, Canadians can access testing through international sources.[9] But this does not eliminate the value of government regulation prohibiting specific tes ts. Such a stance can be an important statement of national values that can strongly influence consumer preferences. Genetic tests should meet some minimum standard of efficacy, such that a test at least detects what it claims to detect. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».