MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carrier Screening of Adolescents in Montreal

2009· other· en· W2151193040 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charles R. Scriver, John J. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueEncyclopedia of Life Sciences · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic counselingMedicinePopulationCommunity educationFamily medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthGeneticsBiologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A carrier screening programme for common genetic autosomal recessive diseases is described. The programme focuses on testing of adolescents in their last year of high school. The main purpose of this programme is to educate the population in high‐risk communities, to offer carrier screening of autosomal recessive diseases (Tay–Sachs and β‐thalassaemia diseases) and to provide counselling about reproductive options. The specific age range targeted allows for education and screening to occur before reproduction. This is a unique programme that was developed in conjunction with the community. Although there remains controversy regarding the screening of adolescents in other areas of the world, this programme is well accepted and has continued to flourish in our specific community for over 30 years. Key concepts: Genetic carrier screening programmes need education, effective counselling and support from the community to be successful. Genetic screening of adolescents in our community is well accepted by the targeted populations. Adolescents who obtain information through carrier testing understand their risks and later utilize this information when they consider their reproductive options.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncyclopedia of Life SciencesSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207