Genetic Counseling for Alcohol Addiction: Assessing Perceptions and Potential Utility in Individuals with Lived Experience and Their Family Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though addictions to substances including alcohol are highly heritable, there have been no studies regarding the possible applicability of genetic counseling to this set of conditions. Adults (≥18 years old) with a personal and/or family history of alcohol addiction were recruited to participate in an online survey-based study comprising 43 questions about beliefs/concern about recurrence risk and etiology of alcohol addiction and its impact on childbearing decisions, and perceptions of potential utility of genetic counseling for alcohol addiction. We applied primarily descriptive statistics, but also tested the hypotheses that perceiving genetic counseling to be useful would be associated with: 1) increasing importance attributed to genetics in the etiology of alcohol addiction, and 2) greater concern about recurrence of alcohol addiction (in self and/or children). Overall, the 113 participants recognized the multifactorial nature of alcohol addiction but reported a wide range of estimated recurrence risks for first-degree relatives. Overall, 62% perceived genetic counseling for alcohol addiction to be potentially beneficial. Participants were more likely to perceive a benefit from genetic counseling if they were concerned about recurrence for themselves (p = .021) or perceived genetics to be etiologically important in alcohol addiction (p = .024). Future studies are warranted to evaluate the outcomes of genetic counseling for addictions with respect to patient understanding, lifestyle modifications and psychological adaptation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".