MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195832088 · doi:10.1038/s41431-021-00952-4

Cascade health service use in family members following genetic testing in children: a scoping literature review

2021· article· en· W3195832088 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra Cernat, Robin Z. Hayeems, Wendy J. Ungar

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Human Genetics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGenetic testingMedicinePopulationProbandGenetic counselingHealth technologyFamily medicineHealth careGeneticsEnvironmental healthBiologyInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cascade genetic testing is the identification of individuals at risk for a hereditary condition by genetic testing in relatives of people known to possess particular genetic variants. Cascade testing has health system implications, however cascade costs and health effects are not considered in health technology assessments (HTAs) that focus on costs and health consequences in individual patients. Cascade health service use must be better understood to be incorporated in HTA of emerging genetic tests for children. The purpose of this review was to characterise published research related to patterns and costs of cascade health service use by relatives of children with any condition diagnosed through genetic testing. To this end, a scoping literature review was conducted. Citation databases were searched for English-language papers reporting uptake, costs, downstream health service use, or cost-effectiveness of cascade investigations of relatives of children who receive a genetic diagnosis. Included publications were critically appraised, and findings were synthesised. Twenty publications were included. Sixteen had a paediatric proband population; four had a combined paediatric and adult proband population. Uptake of cascade testing varied across diseases, from 37% for cystic fibrosis, 39% to 65% for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and 90% for rare monogenic conditions. Two studies evaluated costs. It was concluded that cascade testing in the child-to-parent direction has been reported in a variety of diseases, and that understanding the scope of cascade testing will aid in the design and conduct of HTA of emerging genetic technologies to better inform funding and policy decisions.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Human GeneticsSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207