Enhancing the Impact of Genomics Research in Autism through Integration of Research Results into Routine Care Pathways—A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The return of genetic results (RoR) to participants, enrolled as children, in autism research remains a complex process. Existing recommendations offer limited guidance on the use of genetic research results for clinical care. We highlight current challenges with RoR and illustrate how the use of a guiding framework drawn from existing literature facilitates RoR and the clinical integration of genetic research results. We report a case series (n = 16) involving the return of genetic results to participants in large genomics studies in Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). We outline the framework that guided RoR and facilitated integration into clinical care pathways. We highlight specific cases to illustrate challenges that were, or could have been, resolved through this framework. The case series demonstrates the ethical, clinical and practical difficulties of RoR in ASD genomic studies for participants enrolled as children. Challenges were resolved using pre-established framework to guide RoR and incorporate research genetic results into clinical care. We suggest that optimal use of genetic research results relies on their integration into individualized care pathways for participants. We offer a framework that attempts to bridge the gap between research and healthcare in ASD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".