A centralized approach to out‐of‐province genetic testing leads to cost savings: the Alberta experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Genetic Resource Center (GRC) is a centralized process for requesting genetic testing that is not available within the province (Alberta, Canada). In order to assess potential cost savings associated with this process, all applications received by the GRC in 2010 were reviewed, and cost savings were recorded for statistical analysis. Seven areas of cost savings were identified: (i) negotiated pricing, (ii) laboratory selection, (iii) testing setup in-province, (iv) duplicate testing, (v) inappropriate testing, (vi) sequential testing and (vii) testing offered within the province.The total test cost of the 615 applications submitted in 2010 without the GRC process would have been $766,783 (Canadian dollars). A total cost savings of $112,201 was achieved through the GRC, which represents 15% of the total cost of requested testing ($112,201/$766,783). This is the first study to examine areas of cost savings for genetic testing sent out-of-province. The greatest cost savings resulted from the areas of laboratory selection and negotiated pricing. A centralized process to manage out-of-province genetic test requests results in consistency in testing and significant cost savings.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".