MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607129590 · doi:10.1002/pd.5055

Experience of carrier couples identified through a population‐based carrier screening pilot program for four founder autosomal recessive diseases in Saguenay–Lac‐Saint‐Jean

2017· article· en· W2607129590 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jessica Tardif, Annabelle Pratte, Anne‐Marie Laberge

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFounder effectCarrier testingMedicinePopulationGenetic counselingFamily historySolute carrier familyFamily medicineGeneticsBiologySurgeryPrenatal diagnosisPregnancyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pilot population-based carrier screening program started in 2010 in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region of Quebec, Canada, for four recessive diseases with local founder effects (tyrosinemia type I, autosomal recessive spastic ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay, congenital lactic acidosis, and Andermann syndrome). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the experience of carrier couples identified through this program. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with carrier couples. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts was performed to identify emerging themes. RESULTS: Interviews were performed with 15 carrier couples (56% response rate). Carrier couples had little knowledge about the target diseases before being identified as carriers, despite pre-test education sessions. The main motivation for screening was a recommendation by a peer who had been screened, even for those with a positive family history of one of the target conditions. Couples perceived themselves at low risk of being a carrier couple, whatever their family history. Being found to be a carrier couple was initially a shock, illustrating how ill prepared they were for such a result, but carrier couples appreciated knowing their status. CONCLUSION: Our results emphasize the informational needs of couples to make informed decisions and the importance of post-test counseling for those with positive results. Our findings can inform counseling procedures in expanded carrier screening. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicMetabolism and Genetic DisordersFrench-language works237,207