MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185920359 · doi:10.1111/jar.12927

Sexual knowledge and behaviour in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, a complex care condition

2021· article· en· W3185920359 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa D. Palmer, Tracy Heung, Maria Corral, Erik Boot, Stephanie G. Brooks, Anne S. Bassett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntellectual disabilityHuman sexualityPsychologySexually activeClinical psychologyHealth careDevelopmental psychologyReproductive healthMedicinePsychiatryFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is limited information about sexual knowledge and behaviours in adults with complex care needs, including those with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q) which represents a group predisposed to intellectual disabilities. METHODS: We conducted sexual health assessments with 67 adults with 22q, examining whether those with knowledge deficits and a history of engaging in sexual activities with others would be more likely to engage in high-risk behaviours. RESULTS: The majority (65.7%) of adults with 22q were sexually active with others; most (70.1%) had sexual knowledge deficits. Those with intellectual disabilities were more likely (p = .0012) to have deficits in certain topics. In the sexually active subgroup, most (81.8%) engaged in high-risk sexual behaviours, regardless of intellectual disability or knowledge deficits. CONCLUSION: The results suggest a need for increased dialogue, repeated education, genetic counselling and preventive healthcare measures related to sexuality in 22q and potentially in other complex care conditions.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Research in Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207