Genetic counselling resources in non-english languages: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Genetic counselling is essential for individuals seeking genetic or genomic testing. Whereas innovative strategies for GC delivery are being explored to meet the growing demand on the clinical genetics workforce, it is essential to consider the unique needs of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to examine the extent, range, and gaps in the body of non-English, patient-facing educational resources available for Limited English Proficient (LEP) patients accessing clinical genetics and genomics services. Results: The literature search returned 246 unique resources, most available in several languages. Forty-six languages were represented, with Spanish, Russian, and French being the most common. Resources were in various formats and were of varying quality. Conclusions: There is a lack of high-quality supplementary genetics education material available in languages other than English, which limits the quality-of-care that LEP families may receive compared to their English-speaking counterparts. Of equal concern is the difficulty in finding existing resources and in determining their quality. Innovation: This research highlights the important need for genetics education material that is of good quality in languages other than English and the challenges associated with identifying this material. A central, curated repository, perhaps sponsored by a genetic counselling organization, would be of great benefit to help genetic counsellors meet the needs of their culturally and linguistically diverse patients.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it