Parents’ Experience with Pediatric Microarray: Transferrable Lessons in the Era of Genomic Counseling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in genome-based microarray and sequencing technologies hold tremendous promise for understanding, better-managing and/or preventing disease and disease-related risk. Chromosome microarray technology (array based comparative genomic hybridization [aCGH]) is widely utilized in pediatric care to inform diagnostic etiology and medical management. Less clear is how parents experience and perceive the value of this technology. This study explored parents' experiences with aCGH in the pediatric setting, focusing on how they make meaning of various types of test results. We conducted in-person or telephone-based semi-structured interviews with parents of 21 children who underwent aCGH testing in 2010. Transcripts were coded and analyzed thematically according to the principles of interpretive description. We learned that parents expect genomic tests to be of personal use; their experiences with aCGH results characterize this use as intrinsic in the test's ability to provide a much sought-after answer for their child's condition, and instrumental in its ability to guide care, access to services, and family planning. In addition, parents experience uncertainty regardless of whether aCGH results are of pathogenic, uncertain, or benign significance; this triggers frustration, fear, and hope. Findings reported herein better characterize the notion of personal utility and highlight the pervasive nature of uncertainty in the context of genomic testing. Empiric research that links pre-test counseling content and psychosocial outcomes is warranted to optimize patient 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".