Accuracy of Reported Family History and Effectiveness of Medical Record Requests in Genetic Counseling for Alzheimer Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The University of British Columbia Hospital Clinic for Alzheimer Disease and Related Disorders (UBCH-CARD) invests significant effort to obtain medical records for the confirmation of patient-reported family histories of dementia. The effectiveness of requesting these records was assessed through a review of the 275 requests made by UBCH-CARD genetic counselors during the 24-month period of January 1, 2005-December 31, 2006. The results were categorized according to outcome. Useful medical records were obtained from 92 (33.5%) requests: 77 (28%) records supported, and 15 (5.5%) records did not support, the patient-reported information. An additional 20 (7.5%) requests yielded only vague information. When verification was possible, patient-reported family histories of Alzheimer disease, dementia, or memory loss were accurate in 84% of cases. During the study period, almost 500 h of genetic counselor work time was spent obtaining, reviewing, and following-up on records received. Changes made to UBCH-CARD procedure in response to these findings are discussed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".