MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072895839 · doi:10.1007/s10897-009-9255-7

Lost in Translation: Limitations of a Universal Approach in Genetic Counseling

2009· editorial· en· W2072895839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamid Pour‐Jafari, Bahareh Pourjafari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2009
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic counselingGenetic testingPsychological interventionMedicineMedical educationHealth carePsychologyNursingFamily medicineGeneticsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In countries with a well-developed genetic counseling profession, genetic counselors receive specialized graduate training that includes the study of genetic diseases and how those diseases run in families, and supervised genetic counseling practice. In addition they usually work as part of a health care team in conjunction with other trained specialists to help families make informed decisions about their genetic risk. They also work as patient advocates, helping individuals receive additional support and services for their health care needs. In contrast, in some developing countries physicians, human geneticists, and nurses who do not have specialized training in all of these domains, provide genetic counseling services. And in some cases, they have no academic training courses specific to genetic counseling. Genetic counseling is a complex activity requiring counselors to not only have extensive knowledge of human genetics and well-honed counseling skills, but also to be able to apply their knowledge and skills in ethically and culturally sensitive ways. For instance, genetic counselors should tailor their interventions to each client's situation, discussing the client's family history and test results in detail, explaining when and how genetic testing may not be appropriate for their situation, and informing them of other options to reduce their risk or lifestyle changes that may help their situation. Sometimes certain options clash with client's cultural and/or religious beliefs (e.g., having ovaries removed in women at risk for ovarian cancer, or raising termination of a pregnancy as an option), and counselors should be able to anticipate these conflicts. Another facet of the complexity of genetic counseling is that it is a two-way process; the only way counseling can be effective is if clients engage in ways that allow genetic counselors to understand them, that is, disclosing all relevant information to the best of their knowledge, and being open to exploring options. In an ideal genetic counseling process, the client trusts the counselor (and other medical team members who often participate in designing an action plan for continued medical management), and thus feels comfortable providing information and participating in decision-making. To promote this ideal goal, genetic counselors should be familiar with their clients’ socioeconomic situations, cultures, religions, values, and so on. There is a substantial and growing body of genetic counseling literature. A majority of these books and scientific papers are authored by western scientists, and usually they are most helpful for practitioners and clients in their own countries. Little explicit attention is given to the fact that those materials, in almost all cases, are translated verbatim into other languages and considered as “standards” for practice in developing countries, despite the often deep differences among cultures. An obvious risk of directly generalizing this literature to genetic counseling practice in non-western countries is that the counseling will be ineffective. Furthermore, generalization of certain literature to other western countries may also be problematic with respect to its accuracy and utility (e.g., the United States and Canada have different health care systems). Moreover, even generalization of findings within the region in which a study was conducted is limited in countries that have multicultural populations (e.g., Australia, U.S., Canada). We further suggest the World Health Organization (WHO) provide leadership in these international efforts. The WHO, a specialized agency of the United Nations, serves as a coordinating authority on international public health (Wikipedia, 2009).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.584
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.799
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.584
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5840.799
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0110.035
Scholarly communication0.0250.030
Open science0.0120.033
Research integrity0.0060.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207