MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919088204 · doi:10.1097/jxx.0000000000000211

Direct to consumer versus clinical genetic testing

2019· article· en· W2919088204 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Wysocki, Nicole Danielle Osier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsEmergent BioSolutions (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic testingTest (biology)Genetic counselingMedicinePsychologyBiologyGeneticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are approximately 250 direct to consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies marketing different testing options such as genetic health risk, carrier status, ancestry, wellness, traits, noninvasive prenatal genetic testing, athleticism, and many others. As a result, choosing the most appropriate test may be daunting when compared with a focused genetic test ordered by a clinician. A wealth of information may be discovered and care must be taken by both consumers and clinicians when deciphering test results. This column highlights considerations when proceeding forward with a DTC genetic test.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Association of Nurse PractitionersSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207