MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1582914439 · doi:10.1111/cge.12364

A ‘cure’ for Down syndrome: what do parents want?

2014· article· en· W1582914439 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A. Inglis, Jehannine Austin, Catriona Hippman

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRare Disease Foundation
KeywordsCure rateDown syndromeMedicineIntellectual disabilityMainland ChinaFamily medicinePsychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advancements in molecular genetics raise the possibility that therapeutics or a 'cure' for Down syndrome (DS) may become available. However, there are no data regarding how parents of children with DS perceive the possibility of mitigating specific manifestations such as the intellectual disability (ID) associated with DS, or curing the condition entirely. To explore these issues, we distributed a questionnaire to members of the Lower Mainland Down Syndrome Society in British Columbia, Canada. Questionnaires were completed by 101 parents (response rate=41%). A majority (61%) viewed the possibility of reversing ID in DS positively, but only 41% said that they would 'cure' their child of DS if it were possible. Twenty-seven percent of respondents said they would not 'cure' their child, and 32% were unsure if they would 'cure' their child. The most commonly cited motivation for opting for a 'cure' was to increase their child's independence. However, parental attitudes' towards a 'cure' for DS were complex, affected by ethical issues, perceived societal values, and pragmatic factors such as the age of the individual and long-term care-giving burden. These findings could be used by healthcare professionals supporting families who include a member with DS and to direct future research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.338 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207