Cognitive and Behavioural Effects of Genetic Testing for Thrombophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very few studies have examined the impact of genetic testing for thrombophilia on health behaviours, perceptions of control over risk factors for venous thromboembolism, or health services utilization. Through a postal questionnaire we compared first degree relatives with thrombophilia (carriers) most of whom had received counseling, to those without (non-carriers) with respect to: (a) perceived causes of venous thromboembolism; (b) perceived control; (c) health behaviour changes; and (d) use of health care services. 44/51 for carriers and 26/47 for non-carriers completed questionnaires. Carriers were more likely to believe their risk of venous thromboembolism 'is a little higher' or 'much higher' than average (p < 0.001) but some continued to believe their risk 'is the same as' or 'lower than' average. 16%-32% of carriers did not recognize major risk factors. Stress, worry, or depression, negative attitude, and over-exertion were over-interpreted as risks. 37.2% did not appreciate that thrombophilia increases risk. Behaviour changes were uncommon. There is a need for research on education and strategies to improve knowledge in thrombophilia carriers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".