Psychosocial impact of predictive testing for myotonic dystrophy type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region (Quebec, Canada), a predictive DNA-testing program for myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) has been available as a clinical service since 1988. From 1 to 12 years (median, 5 years) after receiving predictive testing, a total of 308 participants (44 carriers and 264 non-carriers) answered a questionnaire to determine the psychosocial impact of this genetic testing. The main reasons for wanting to be tested were to learn if children are at risk for DM1 or for reproductive decision making (75%) and to relieve the uncertainty for themselves (17%). The majority of participants (96.1%) remembered correctly their test result. At the time of the survey, the perception of the general well-being, the psychological distress (Psychiatric Symptom Index), and the self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) were similar in carriers, in non-carriers, and in the reference (Quebec) population. When participants indicated a change in different aspects of their lives following predictive testing, it was perceived as a change for the better by non-carriers and as a change for the worse by carriers. Nevertheless, for a majority of carriers and of non-carriers, the test result did not bring changes in their lives. All respondents believed that predictive testing should be available for the at-risk population and the vast majority of carrier and of non-carriers would recommend the use of predictive testing to their family members. Predictive testing for individuals at-risk of DM1 can be offered safely within a well-organized clinical and genetic counseling program that includes careful pre-test counseling, pre-test clinical assessment, post-test psychological support, and follow-up for those identified as carriers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".