The genetic background of Southern Iranian couples before marriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic service for couples plays an increasingly important role in diagnosis and risk management. This study investigated the status of consanguinity and the medical genetic history (effectiveness and coverage of medical genetic services) in couples residing in a city in southern Iran. We questioned couples who were referred to Behbahan Marital Counseling Center, Behbahan, Iran, during the period from January to November 2014, to obtain information on consanguinity, disease history, and previous referral to a medical genetics center. For the collected data was obtained descriptive statistics with STATA 11.0 software. A total of 500 couples were questioned. Mean age was 24.8 ± 5.2 years. Almost one quarter (23.4%) of the couples were consanguineous. Consanguinity was almost twice as common in rural areas as in urban areas (33.9 vs . 19.2%, p = 0.001). Only a few couples (~3.0%) had ever been referred for genetic counseling. The main reason for previous genetic counseling was consanguinity (85.7%). The majority of the participants (96.3%) had never been tested for any genetic conditions. Our findings suggest that only a small proportion of couples in Khuzestan Province, Iran (Behbahan City) were receiving adequate genetics care. This may reflect the limited accessibility of such services, and inadequate awareness and education among the care providers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".