Adoption and the communication of genetic risk: experiences in Huntington disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adoption agencies can use genetic information to determine the eligibility of prospective adoptive parents and to establish a child's suitability for adoption. We describe experiences and implications of communicating genetic risk for Huntington disease (HD) in the context of adoption. A secondary analysis was employed using data collected from a cross-sectional survey (n = 233) and two qualitative studies on the psychosocial effects of predictive testing for HD. We demonstrate several ethical and practical challenges in the search for and communication of genetic information for adoptees and their birth relatives. We also found that concern for adoption discrimination was reported by 13.7% of survey respondents (n = 32). Concerns were higher among tested respondents than those who had not been tested (n = 29 vs n = 3, p = 0.010). However, more respondents were concerned about being discriminated based on their family history (FHx) vs their genetic test results (GTR) (concern based on FHx: n = 18 vs based on GTR: n = 1 vs based on both: n =10). These findings contribute to the limited empirical literature by offering evidence on the experiences and implications of communicating genetic risk information in the context of adoption with reference to HD.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".