MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742212590 · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2352

Role of Genetic Testing in Inherited Cardiovascular Disease

2017· review· en· W2742212590 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Cardiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineGenetic testingDiseaseIntensive care medicineMEDLINEBioinformaticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Genetic testing is a valuable tool for managing inherited cardiovascular disease in patients and families, including hypertrophic, dilated, and arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathies and inherited arrhythmias. By identifying the molecular etiology of disease, genetic testing can improve diagnostic accuracy and refine family management. However, unique features associated with genetic testing affect the interpretation and application of results and differentiate it from traditional laboratory-based diagnostics. Clinicians and patients must have accurate and realistic expectations about the yield of genetic testing and its role in management. Familiarity with the rationale, implications, benefits, and limitations of genetic testing is essential to achieve the best possible outcomes. Observations: Successfully incorporating genetic testing into clinical practice requires (1) recognizing when inherited cardiovascular disease may be present, (2) identifying appropriate individuals in the family for testing, (3) selecting the appropriate genetic test, (4) understanding the complexities of result interpretation, and (5) effectively communicating the results and implications to the patient and family. Obtaining a detailed family history is critical to identify families who will benefit from genetic testing, determine the best strategy, and interpret results. Instead of focusing on an individual patient, genetic testing requires consideration of the family as a unit. Consolidation of care in centers with a high level of expertise is recommended. Clinicians without expertise in genetic testing will benefit from establishing referral or consultative networks with experienced clinicans in specialized multidisciplinary clinics. Conclusions and Relevance: Genetic testing provides a foundation for transitioning to more precise and individualized management. By distinguishing phenotypic subgroups, identifying disease mechanisms, and focusing family care, gene-based diagnosis can improve management. Successful integration of genetic testing into clinical practice requires understanding of the complexities of testing and effective communication of the implications to patients and families.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.235 · 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