Exploring Genetic Counselors’ Perceptions of and Attitudes towards Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenia is a common complex condition, for which no genetic testing is yet clinically available. Genetic counseling for psychiatric disorders is viewed by genetic counselors as a growth area, and to meet any increase in demand it is important to understand existing context. Thus, we surveyed general practice members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, to examine perceptions and attitudes relating to schizophrenia. A total of 136 genetic counselors completed the survey, of whom 50% were engaged in general practice roles and therefore eligible to participate. Of these, 40% reported 'rarely' or 'never' asking about psychiatric illness when taking a family history. Some respondents expressed concern that discussing genetics of schizophrenia and providing risk assessment with families may be more confusing or worrisome than helpful. Many counselors reported that patients feel frustrated with the inability of genetic counselors to provide individual risk calculations. It appears that genetic counselors are reluctant to ask patients about psychiatric illness, and are concerned that their services might not be helpful in the context of schizophrenia.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".