MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943564424 · doi:10.13034/jsst.v11i1.285

Factors Affecting Consent Rate for Whole Genome Sequencing of Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

2019· article· en· W2943564424 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jinny Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Science and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart diseaseEthnic groupMedicineDiseaseInformed consentPediatricsParental consentNewborn screeningMedical diagnosisFamily medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Whole Genome Sequencing Project initiated by The Hospital for Sick Children of Toronto intents to enroll patients between one to eighteen years of age with congenital heart disease to test the efficiency of such a method for potential personalized diagnoses and treatments. Twenty-five randomly approached patients were chosen to be observed of their consent rate to the project based on factors of age, gender, ethnicity, presence of heart diseases in the patient’s family, and type of congenital heart disease represented. Females and ethnicities not of European descent are considered to be a part of the minority groups, generally being under represented thus having a lower consent rate. There were no significant correlations between consent rates and familial history of heart disease, type of heart disease and age groups. All these findings can aid in future studies of the SickKids Hospital; which patients should be approached for higher consent rates, and the inclusivity of minority groups to alleviate bias in medical studies.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.134
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.134
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Student Science and TechnologySame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207