Reduced Uptake of Family Screening in Genotype‐Negative Versus Genotype‐Positive Long QT Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acceptance and yield of family screening in genotype-negative long QT syndrome (LQTS) remains incompletely characterized. In this study of family screening for phenotype-definite Long QT Syndrome (LQTS, Schwartz score ≥3.5), probands at a regional Inherited Cardiac Arrhythmia clinic were reviewed. All LQTS patients were offered education by a qualified genetic counselor, along with materials for family screening including electronic and paper correspondence to provide to family members. Thirty-eight qualifying probands were identified and 20 of these had family members who participated in cascade screening. The acceptance of screening was found to be lower among families without a known pathogenic mutation (33 vs. 77 %, p = 0.02). A total of 52 relatives were screened; fewer relatives were screened per index case when the proband was genotype-negative (1.7 vs. 3.1, p = 0.02). The clinical yield of screening appeared to be similar irrespective of gene testing results (38 vs. 33 %, p = 0.69). Additional efforts to promote family screening among gene-negative long QT families may be warranted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".