Prenatal and preconception genetic counseling for consanguinity: Consanguineous couples' expectations, experiences, and perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consanguinity, the union between two individuals who are related as second cousins or closer, is a long-standing and respected tradition in many communities. Although there are social and economic benefits of consanguineous unions, offspring are at increased risk of having an inherited genetic condition or congenital anomaly. Genetic counseling services for consanguinity are available to couples at many centers. However, little is known about patient expectations of and experiences with genetic counseling for this indication, or their perspectives on genetic screening relevant to family planning, such as expanded carrier screening (ECS). This exploratory qualitative study involved interviews with 13 individuals who had recently received preconception or prenatal genetic counseling for consanguinity at a single center. We sought to gain insight into their expectations for the genetic counseling session, experiences discussing family history and reproductive risks with the genetic counselor, and views on ECS. Interview transcripts were analyzed using an interpretive descriptive approach. Data analysis revealed three main themes: (a) anticipation balances apprehension before the appointment; (b) genetic counseling reduces anxiety and empowers; and (c) the need for wider information dissemination about consanguinity-related risks and genetic services. Our findings support the personal utility of genetic counseling for consanguinity and demonstrate the need for increased visibility and access to genetics information, counseling, and testing relevant to this patient population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".