MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225246996 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-060899

Genetics Adviser: a protocol for a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial evaluating a digital platform for genetics service delivery

2022· article· en· W4225246996 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Salma Shickh, Daena Hirjikaka, Marc Clausen, Rita Kodida, Chloe Mighton, Emma Reble, Jordan Sam, Seema Panchal, Melyssa Aronson, Tracy Graham, Susan Randall Armel, Emily Glogowski, Christine Elser, Andrea Eisen, June Carroll, Cheryl Shuman, Emily Seto, Nancy N. Baxter, Adena Scheer, Serena Shastri-Estrada, Geoff Feldman, Kevin E. Thorpe, Kasmintan A. Schrader, Jordan Lerner‐Ellis, Raymond H. Kim, Hanna Faghfoury, Yvonne Bombard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaPublic Health OntarioWorkplace Safety & Insurance BoardLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreSinai Health SystemCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationHospital for Sick ChildrenSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital FoundationMcLaughlin Centre, University of Toronto
KeywordsGenetic counselingMedicineGenetic testingTest (biology)Medical geneticsFamily medicineNursingGeneticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The high demand for genetic tests and limited supply of genetics professionals has created a need for alternative service delivery models. Digital tools are increasingly being used to support multiple points in the genetic testing journey; however, none are transferable across multiple clinical specialties and settings nor do they encompass the entire trajectory of the journey. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Genetics Adviser, an interactive, patient-facing, online digital health tool that delivers pre-test counselling, provides support during the waiting period for results, and returns results with post-test counselling, encompassing the entire patient genetic testing journey. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will compare the Genetics Adviser paired with a brief genetic counselling session to genetic counselling alone in a randomised controlled trial. One hundred and forty patients who previously received uninformative genetic test results for their personal and family history of cancer will be recruited from familial cancer clinics in Toronto and offered all clinically significant results from genomic sequencing. Participants randomised into the intervention arm will use the Genetics Adviser to learn about genomic sequencing, receive pre-test counselling, support during the waiting period and results, supplemented with brief counselling from a genetic counsellor. Participants in the control arm will receive standard pre-test and post-test counselling for genomic sequencing from a genetic counsellor. Our primary outcome is decisional conflict following pre-test counselling from the Genetics Adviser+genetic counsellor or counsellor alone. Secondary outcomes include: knowledge, satisfaction with decision-making, anxiety, quality of life, psychological impact of results, empowerment, acceptability and economic impact for patients and the health system. A subset of patients will be interviewed to assess user experience. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Research Ethics Review System (REB#20-035). Results will be shared through stakeholder workshops, national and international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04725565.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.006
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.012

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207