MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588031420 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckw169.043

Delivery models for predictive genetic testing: preliminary results of a systematic review

2016· review· en· W2588031420 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brigid Unim, Tyra Lagerberg, Giovanna Adamo, Erica Pitini, Elvira D’Andrea, MR Vacchio, Corrado De Vito, Paolo Villari

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic testingMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Research on the integration of genomic knowledge into clinical practice and public health is in an early phase, and many concerns remain. The aim of this study is to identify, classify, and evaluate delivery models for the provision of predictive genetic testing in Europe vs. extra-European (Anglophone) countries. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify existing genetic delivery models. Inclusion criteria were that articles be: published 2000-2015; in English or Italian; and from European or non-European countries (Canada, USA, Australia or New Zealand). Additional policy documents were retrieved from represented countries’ government-affiliated websites (non-systematic search). Results A total of 117 records were included, reporting on 148 genetic programmes. The programmes integrated into healthcare systems were 99 (64.9%), 49 (33.1%) were pilot programmes and 4 (2.7%) were direct-to-consumer genetic services. Most programmes were delivered in the United Kingdom (58, 39.2%), USA (35, 23.6%) or Australia (16, 10.8%). Tests for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome were most commonly offered (39.9% and 12.8% of programmes, respectively). Many of the genetic tests offered have insufficient clinical validity or utility. The identified genetic programmes can be classified into five basic genetic service models based on which type of healthcare professional has the most prominent role in test referral: I) the geneticists model; II) the primary care model; III) the medical specialists model; IV) the population screening programmes model; V) and the direct-to-consumer model. Rudimentary evaluation of the identified programmes will be made based on outcomes and process measures of the models. Conclusions This review, as part of an European multicenter study, will facilitate the identification of appropriate models, outcome and process measures for the provision of predictive genetic testing in Europe. Key messages: Current genetic services are delivered without standardized set of process and outcome measures, which are essential for the evaluation of healthcare services Identification of appropriate genetic services delivery models is important for the implementation of genetic applications of proven efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.015
Bibliometrics0.0140.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207