Outcomes of psychiatric genetic counseling in relation to time since diagnosis and symptom onset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To our knowledge, no studies have yet evaluated whether genetic counseling (GC) outcomes are influenced by the timing of the counseling session in relation to the onset or diagnosis of the condition of interest. We conducted an exploratory retrospective chart review using a database from a psychiatric GC (pGC) clinic, to examine the relationship between GC outcomes and time elapsed between: (a) onset of psychiatric symptoms (time since onset, TSO) and/or (b) psychiatric diagnosis (time since diagnosis, TSD), and the pGC session. Linear regression was used to assess the relationship between change in Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale (GCOS) scores from pre‐GC to 1 month post‐GC and TSO and/or TSD. Charts of 271 patients (80% women, mean age = 39.9 years old) seen between 2012 and 2018 were included in the analyses. Mean TSO = 19.6 years (range 0–62 years), and mean TSD = 11.1 years (range 0–43 years). Overall, empowerment increased after GC regardless of TSO/TSD ( p < 0.0001, d = 1.11). While there was no relationship between GCOS change and TSD, a negative relationship was observed for TSO ( p = .032) suggesting better outcomes with shorter TSO, although the effect size was very small ( f 2 = 0.019). Post hoc analysis revealed this effect was driven by two diagnoses, depression ( n = 164, p = 0.013) and schizoaffective disorder ( n = 6, p = 0.042). For the former, the effect size was very small ( f 2 = 0.038) and for the latter, the probability of type 2 error was high. In sum, our data suggest that TSO/TSD plays a negligible role in outcomes of pGC, with patients benefitting from pGC, regardless how long ago symptoms started/diagnosis was made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".