Patient Recall, Interpretation, and Perspective of an Inconclusive Long QT Syndrome Genetic Test Result
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients' perceptions of inconclusive results have been previously investigated in cancer genetics. The differences in how patients recall and interpret an uninformative test result compared to a known pathogenic result can affect medical decisions post disclosure. However, there is little to no data available on patients' interpretation and perception of uninformative genetic results in inherited heart disease. We report the results of a qualitative analysis of 16 telephone interviews with participants who received a negative or a variant of unknown significance (VUS) result from Long QT syndrome (LQTS) genetic testing. Our results suggest that the type of result (negative versus VUS) does not affect recall, regardless of the reason for testing. When receiving a negative result, a majority of participants appropriately perceived no change in their diagnosis, while the perception of risk for family members varied. The majority of participants felt they maintained an awareness of their condition after the result disclosure, and that clinical follow-up was similar to that planned prior to the genetic test result. Further work is needed to determine if there are any differences between obtaining a VUS result versus a negative result in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".