MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292983700 · doi:10.1111/cge.14210

Psychiatric genetic counseling for people with copy number variants associated with psychiatric conditions

2022· review· en· W4292983700 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Morris, Angela Inglis, Jehannine Austin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryCopy-number variationSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Psychiatric medicationExome sequencingGenetic counselingMedicinePsychiatric geneticsPsychologyGeneticsMental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

22q11.2 deletion is one of the most well-known copy number variants (CNVs) associated with developing a psychiatric condition (e.g., schizophrenia), but there is a growing list of other CNVs which also confer substantial risk for developing psychiatric conditions. With increased use of chromosome microarray and exome sequencing, the frequency with which these CNVs are detected is increasing. While individuals with such CNVs often receive genetic counseling, research shows that associated psychiatric conditions are less often addressed-clinicians tend to focus on the nonpsychiatric manifestations of the CNV. This represents an important service gap for people with these CNVs and their families, as research shows that not only do these families want genetic counseling about psychiatric illness, it can also produce meaningful positive outcomes for people, including increases in empowerment, and self-efficacy. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that individuals with psychiatric condition-associated CNVs are being counseled about these manifestations of their condition in a way that can promote the best outcomes. In this paper we describe the process of providing genetic counseling in two clinical scenarios in which a psychiatric susceptibility CNV is identified: (1) in an individual who has not been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition and (2) in an individual with an established psychiatric condition.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207