MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175570788 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1454

After genomic testing results: <i>Parents’ long‐term views</i>

2021· article· en· W3175570788 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole Si Yan Liang, Shelin Adam, Alison M. Elliott, Angela Siemens, Christèle du Souich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTerm (time)Genetic counselingHuman geneticsPublic healthGenetic testingGenomic medicineMedicineGeneticsPsychologyComputational biologyBiologyPathologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many parents are motivated to pursue genome-wide (exome or genome) sequencing to find a diagnosis for their child with a suspected but undiagnosed genetic condition. However, the impact of the genomic test extends beyond the provision of results and the so-called 'diagnostic odyssey'. Our goal was to quantify post-test decisional regret and characterize long-term, post-test experiences and unmet needs of the parents of children with suspected genetic diseases after they had received the results of genome-wide sequencing. Study participants were parents of children who underwent trio genome-wide sequencing as part of the CAUSES research study at Children's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia. About half of the participants received a definite or likely genetic diagnosis after clinical interpretation of the genome-wide sequencing results. Parents who participated in the current study (n = 121) completed the Decisional Regret Scale four weeks after receiving results. A subset of these parents (n = 32) had semi-structured interviews a median of 7 months (range 3-20 months) after results disclosure and post-test genetic counseling. Most parents expressed either no regret or mild regret about having undergone genome-wide sequencing on both the Decisional Regret Scale and in the interviews. Parents whose children did not receive a genetic diagnosis were slightly more likely to have decisional regret on this quantitative scale. Analysis of transcribed interviews revealed the following major themes: (a) a lack of decisional conflict around having the testing; (b) a lack of decisional regret post-testing; (c) expressions of both relief and continued uncertainty around the meaning of a genetic diagnosis; (d) expression of initial disappointment and evolving interpretation surrounding a result yielding no genetic diagnosis; and (e) needing time to absorb the test results. Our results suggest that parents need time to absorb the testing results and that long-term post-test counseling, including acknowledging feelings of relief, loss, and disappointment, may help parents adapt to the genomic test results and assist families to anticipate and plan for the next steps in their child's medical trajectory, whether or not a diagnosis is found.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.277
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207