Caregiver and adult patient perspectives on the importance of a diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in genetics are particularly relevant in the field of intellectual disability (ID), where sub-microscopic deletions or duplications of genetic material are increasingly implicated as known or suspected causal factors. Data-driven reports on the impact of providing an aetiological explanation in ID are needed to help justify widespread use of new and expensive genetic technologies. METHODS: We conducted a survey of caregivers on the value of a genetic/aetiologic diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS), the most common microdeletion syndrome in ID. We also surveyed the opinion of a high-functioning subset of adults with 22q11.2DS themselves. We used standard quantitative and qualitative methods to analyse the responses. RESULTS: In total, 73 of 118 surveys were returned (61.9%). There was convergence of quantitative and qualitative results, and consistency between adult patient and caregiver responses. A definitive molecular diagnosis of 22q11.2DS was a critical event with diverse positive repercussions, even if occurring later in life. Frequently cited benefits included greater understanding and certainty, newfound sense of purpose and a platform for advocacy, and increased opportunities to optimise medical, social and educational needs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to characterise the impact of a diagnosis of this representative microdeletion syndrome on adult patients and their families. The results both validate and expand on the theoretical benefits proposed by clinicians and researchers. The use of genome-wide microarray technologies will provide an increasing number of molecular diagnoses. The importance of a diagnosis of 22q11.2DS demonstrated here therefore has implications for changing attitudes about molecular genetic diagnosis that could benefit individuals with ID of currently unknown cause and their families.
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 | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".