MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909704692 · doi:10.15173/sciential.v1i1.1902

Innovative Commercial and Private Genetic Testing Raises Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns

2018· article· en· W2909704692 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Syeda Masooma Zaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityPersonally identifiable informationBusinessInternet privacyGenetic testingTest (biology)Third partyInformation sharingPrivate information retrievalAsk priceMarketingComputer securityComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide WebFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obtaining information about your genes can be as easy as swabbing your cheek for DNA testing. Companies that offer direct-to-consumer genetic testing with saliva have the authority to collect and share personal data as well as test results from their clients. However, patients want their personal information to be protected and although these companies ask for consent before sharing information with third-party sources, companies have the right to use client data to initiate research or improve their business. Genetic testing companies need to respect their clients and understand that they are paying for a service which deals with sensitive information that individuals may not want collected and stored.

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)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.127
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.127
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.025
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0140.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.336
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.172 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science JournalSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207