MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123984172 · doi:10.1111/jlme.12298

Disclosing Secondary Findings from Pediatric Sequencing to Families: Considering the “Benefit to Families”

2015· article· en· W2123984172 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin S. Wilfond, Conrad V. Fernandez, Robert C. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaDalhousie University
FundersNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Cancer InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Genetic testingDiscretionFamily historyPsychologyMedicineFamily medicineDevelopmental psychologyPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secondary findings for adult-onset diseases in pediatric clinical sequencing can benefit parents or other family members. In the absence of data showing harm, it is ethically reasonable for parents to request such information, because in other types of medical decision-making, they are often given discretion unless their decisions clearly harm the child. Some parents might not want this information because it could distract them from focusing on the child's underlying condition that prompted sequencing. Collecting family impact data may improve future policy determinations.

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)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.261
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.261
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0170.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations68
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Law Medicine & EthicsSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207