Barriers to genetic testing in clinical psychiatry and ways to overcome them: from clinicians’ attitudes to sociocultural differences between patients across the globe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic testing has evolved rapidly over recent years and new developments have the potential to provide insights that could improve the ability to diagnose, treat, and prevent diseases. Information obtained through genetic testing has proven useful in other specialties, such as cardiology and oncology. Nonetheless, a range of barriers impedes techniques, such as whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, pharmacogenomics, and polygenic risk scoring, from being implemented in psychiatric practice. These barriers may be procedural (e.g., limitations in extrapolating results to the individual level), economic (e.g., perceived relatively elevated costs precluding insurance coverage), or related to clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (e.g., perceived unfavorable cost-effectiveness, insufficient understanding of probability statistics, and concerns regarding genetic counseling). Additionally, several ethical concerns may arise (e.g., increased stigma and discrimination through exclusion from health insurance). Here, we provide an overview of potential barriers for the implementation of genetic testing in psychiatry, as well as an in-depth discussion of strategies to address these challenges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".