Attitudes to the return of incidental and targeted genomic findings obtained in a high-risk pediatric cancer versus an inherited genetic condition research setting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10066 Background: The disclosure of clinically significant, validated incidental and target findings to participants in genomic research is often recommended. There have been no reports on whether attitudes of parents differ if these findings emerge from an acquired pediatric cancer versus an inherited genetic condition setting. Methods: Parents in 3 large-scale projects [Canadian Pediatric Cancer Genome Consortium (CPCGC), the Finding of Rare Genes Canada Consortium (FORGE) and the Orphan Diseases: identifying Genes and Novel Therapeutics to Enhance Treatment Project (IGNITE)] were surveyed using a mailed, validated 29-item questionnaire. Two reminders were sent. Analysis was by descriptive and Chi-square statistics. Results: Response rate: 64% (n=307/480). 40% were > 50 yrs age; more than half had a grade 12 education. 86 were parents of poor risk pediatric cancer patients and 221 were parents or individuals with rare inherited conditions. Most stated a very strong or strong right to genomic research results, irrespective if from the target condition (97%) or incidental (86%). 70% wish genetic counselling pre- and post-research testing; an additional 20% were uncertain what this entails. Almost all indicated that genomic research for childhood onset conditions should occur, regardless of whether therapy existed (99%) or not (91%). A few indicated that they would not want incidental results showing an untreatable fatal condition (17%). Most want results, even if these suggest susceptibility to multiple conditions (87%) or are of uncertain health impact (84%). Most felt a right to genomic research that showed a serious condition in siblings, whether treatable (94%) or not (89%). 74% strongly support that results discovered after death of the proband be shared with family. Conclusions: Parents of children in both cancer and inherited rare conditions genomic research do not differ in indicating a strong right and desire to receive research results, even if they are of uncertain impact, of childhood onset, or after death of the proband. Clear delineation of what will or will not be offered from genomic research should be established at the time of consent.
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 | 0.014 | 0.049 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".