Using the Internet to Seek Information About Genetic and Rare Diseases: A Case Study Comparing Data From 2006 and 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Genetic and Rare Disease Information Center (GARD) is a major provider of Web-based information on genetic and rare diseases. Little is known about the type of Web-based information individuals seek about genetic and rare diseases or their reasons for seeking. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the types of Web-based information sought about genetic and rare diseases and the reasons for seeking it from GARD by examining inquiries from 2006 and 2011. METHODS: There were 278 English-language email and Web-based inquiries posed to GARD by lay individuals (ie, patients, parents, and relatives), which were randomly selected from inquiries in 2006 (n=68) and 2011 (n=210) and examined using content analysis. RESULTS: Most often in both years, individuals sought basic disease information (51/68, 75.0% and 132/210, 62.8%; P=.067) and information about treatment (17/51, 33.3% and 62/132, 47.0%; P=.095). Specifically, inquirers requested information about their disease prognosis (6/51, 11.8% and 23/132, 17.4%; P=.347) and made requests for specialists (8/68, 11.8% and 31/210, 14.8%; P=.536). In both 2006 and 2011, a substantial subset of inquirers requested information related to undiagnosed symptoms, representing 16.2% (11/68) and 11.9% (25/210; P=.362) of inquiries, respectively. Inquirers were significantly more likely to have seen a health care provider before contacting GARD (99/210, 47.1% vs 20/68, 29.4%; P=.010) and to ask about clinical research studies in 2011 than in 2006 (24/210, 11.4% vs 2/68, 2.9%; P=.037). In the 2011 data set, the majority of the inquirers were women (201/210, 95.7%). In our 2006 sample, men were the majority source of inquiries (54/68, 79.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study indicate that lay people contacting a genetic and rare disease information center most often seek information about disease prognosis, finding a specialist, and obtaining a diagnosis for symptoms. Unique characteristics of individuals searching the Internet for genetic and rare diseases information, includes a growing interest in participating in clinical research studies and a desire to supplement or better understand information discussed during a visit with a health care provider. These efforts represent advancements in patient self-advocacy.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".