MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4408532001 · doi:10.1016/j.gimo.2025.102457

P609: Mainstreaming genetics: Evaluation of a digital application to scale and spread oncologist-initiated genetic testing

2025· article· en· W4408532001 sur OpenAlexaff
Daniel Assamad, Marc Clausen, Rita Kodida, Kathleen Bell, Andrea Eisen, Christine Elser, Adena Scheer, Emily Seto, Kevin E. Thorpe, Seema Panchal, Yvonne Bombard

Notice bibliographique

RevueGenetics in Medicine Open · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueBiomedical and Engineering Education
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreSinai Health SystemHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScale (ratio)MainstreamingMedical physicsMedical geneticsGenetic testingMedicineGeneticsOncologyComputational biologyInternal medicineComputer scienceBiologyPsychologyGeographyMathematics educationCartographyGeneSpecial education

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Reproductive carrier screening, which initially targeted ethic-specific genetic conditions, is now recommended for all populations.Despite technological capacity for expansive screening, in Singapore only thalassemia is routinely offered.Genetic condition severity and prevalence are main considerations in gene panel development, yet carrier screening uptake can be influenced by other factors such as lived experience and available support services.As most exploratory studies have been conducted in healthcare settings with European-derived populations, further research is required regarding participation and barriers amongst diverse populations to understand acceptability and impact.We explored the attitudes and preferences towards the implementation of carrier screening in Singapore, a population comprising of Chinese, Indian and Malay, by engaging with community members, healthcare professionals and religious leaders.Methods: As an initial scoping exercise, individuals of reproductive age attending outpatient appointments at a tertiary hospital in Singapore were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding their preferences towards carrier screening participation and genetic conditions to be screened.In parallel, the views and attitudes from healthcare professionals working in genetics or obstetric departments regarding carrier screening implementation were also collated by questionnaire.To increase awareness, religious leaders representing Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism were also engaged.Results: To date, 296 community members have responded, with the majority of participants aged 25 to 44 years (range 18-54 years) and 57% identifying as female.Although most had not previously undergone reproductive carrier screening, 94% expressed interest in learning their carrier status.Concerns over potential insurance implications and increased medical appointments were the most common reasons for declining carrier testing.A large proportion of respondents (85%) indicated they would consider further testing if found to be at increased risk of having a child with a genetic condition, while 48% reported they may consider not having children.In addition to severe conditions, most respondents supported testing for late onset or mild genetic conditions.Among the 94 healthcare professional respondents, most acknowledged carrier screening will be routinely incorporated into clinical practice yet only half felt comfortable offering testing to patients.All religious leaders were supportive of carrier screening being offered to prospective parents.Conclusion: Overall, this preliminary data suggests that there is support for the expansion of carrier screening in Singapore from the perspectives of the community, healthcare providers and religious leaders.The responses also highlight key areas for educational initiatives and as well as insights into which genetic conditions to be considered for screening.These findings will help inform the design and implementation of a carrier screening program which is tailored, accessible and equitable for the Singaporean population.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,895
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,471

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,346
Écart entre enseignants0,289 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueGenetics in Medicine OpenMême sujetBiomedical and Engineering EducationTravaux en français237 207