MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141901445 · doi:10.1186/s13023-021-01804-6

Genetic counseling in the context of Bangladesh: current scenario, challenges, and a framework for genetic service implementation

2021· review· en· W3141901445 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Jakir Hosen, Saeed Anwar, Jarin Taslem Mourosi, Sourav Chakraborty, Md. Faruque Miah, Olivier Vanakker

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Innovates
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Genetic counselingDeveloping countryPublic healthBusinessService (business)Economic growthGenetic testingHealth careMedicineMarketingGeographyNursingEconomicsGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advancements in genetics and genomics in the twenty-first century, genetic services have become an integral part of medical practices in high-income and upper-middle-income countries. However, people living in low and lower-middle-income countries (LICs and LIMCs), including Bangladesh, are rather underprivileged in receiving genetic services. Consequently, genetic disorders are emerging as a significant public health concern in these countries. Lack of expertise, high expense, the dearth of epidemiological data, insufficiently updated medical education system, poor infrastructure, and the absence of comprehensive health policies are the main factors causing people living in these countries not having access to genetic services. In this article, the authors took benefit from their professional experience of practicing medical genetics in the area and reviewed existing literature to provide their opinions. Particularly, it reviews the current knowledge of genetic disorders' burden and their causative factors in Bangladesh. It focuses on why providing genetic services is challenging in the context of the country's cultural and religious sentiment. Finally, it proposes a physician-academician collaborative framework within the existing facility that aims to tackle the challenges. Such a framework could also be useful for other LICs and LMICs to address the challenges associated with providing genetic services.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207