Assessment of the beliefs, needs, and expectations for genetic counseling of patients with hypermobile <scp>Ehlers‐Danlos</scp> syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, hypermobility type (hEDS) is a heritable connective tissue disorder that currently does not have a known molecular etiology. Previous studies have explored the complex symptomology, clinical diagnosis, and psychological aspects of hEDS. Genetics providers currently aid in the diagnosis and management guidance of patients with hEDS, but there is limited data describing the needs and expectations of individuals with hEDS from a clinical genetics appointment. Our study sought to explore these items through the use of an online survey to assess participants' beliefs, needs and expectations (BNE) for genetic counseling as well as questions about demographics, hEDS symptoms, and current medical care. A total of 460 respondents with hEDS completed the survey. Most participants felt joint pain/weakness (n = 392; 88%) was one of the most disruptive symptoms of hEDS and 63% (n = 289) reported having psychiatric conditions. BNE scores were highest in two domains: expectations to have psychosocial concerns addressed during a genetic counseling appointment (mean score = 4.4/5; SD = 0.56) and desire for positive feelings after a genetic counseling session (mean score = 4.3/5; SD = 0.59). Participants who previously had genetic counseling felt less unsure about their diagnosis (p = 0.02) and had lower need for information about hEDS (p < 0.001). Majority of participants did not feel that their doctors were knowledgeable about hEDS (n = 269; 58%) and strongly supported a multidisciplinary approach to their care (n = 445; 97%). This research provides a framework for genetics providers and other healthcare professionals to assess the needs and expectations of patients with hEDS and consider re-structuring their appointment formats to service this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".