Evaluating a unique, specialist psychiatric genetic counseling clinic: uptake and impact
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with psychiatric disorders and their family members have expressed interest in receiving genetic counseling (GC). In February 2012, we opened the first (to our knowledge) specialist psychiatric GC clinic of its kind, for individuals with non-syndromic psychiatric disorders and their families. Prior to GC and at a standard 1-month follow-up session, clinical assessment tools are completed, specifically, the GC outcomes scale (GCOS, which measures empowerment, completed by all clients) and the Illness Management Self Efficacy scale (IMSES, completed by those with mental illness). Consecutive English-speaking clients attending the clinic between 1 February 2012 and 31 January 2013 who were capable of consenting were asked for permission to use their de-identified clinical data for research purposes. Descriptive analyses were conducted to ascertain demographic details of attendees, and paired sample t-tests were conducted to assess changes in GCOS and IMSES scores from pre- to post-GC. Of 143 clients, seven were unable to consent, and 75/136 (55.1%) consented. Most were female (85.3%), self-referred (76%), and had personal experience of mental illness (65.3%). Mean GCOS and IMSES scores increased significantly after GC (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.011, respectively). In a naturalistic setting, GC increases empowerment and self-efficacy in this population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it