Public Perceptions of Pharmacogenetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pharmacogenetics (PGx) promises to optimize patient response to therapy. However, the public's acceptance of PGx is not well known, notably when this applies to children. Our objective was to explore perceptions of PGx testing among individuals, who differ from each other by either parental status or educational exposure to PGx, and to explore parents' views between PGx testing for oneself and PGx testing for their children. METHODS: An exploratory survey was conducted among parents and other adults. Surveys P and C were completed by parents, survey NP by middle-aged nonparents, and survey MS by medical students. RESULTS: Proper explanation before PGx testing appeared to be the most important issue to the respondents (eg, P = 1.55 × 10(-38) for survey NP). Respondents who were more knowledgeable about PGx were also more comfortable with PGx testing (eg, P = 2.53 × 10(-7) in case of mild disease). When PGx testing was for one's child, parents valued their own understanding more than their child's assent (P = 1.57 × 10(-17)). CONCLUSIONS: The acceptability of PGx testing, either for oneself or for one's child, seemed to depend on baseline PGx knowledge, but not on parenthood.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".