Carrier screening programs for rare diseases in developed countries and the case of Turkey: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective control of rare diseases requires health programs based on principles of protection and prevention. Carrier screening programs serve as preventive measures by identifying at-risk groups. This review examines the impact, implementation, advantages, and disadvantages of carrier screening, incorporating examples from ten countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, China, Australia, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Data on carrier screening and related policies were collected from July to November 2022 and presented in a tabular format using a coding system devised by the authors. Variability was observed in the diseases/disorders and populations screened, screening expenses, and government provision across the countries. The number of diseases/disorders examined, ranging from 3 to 47, was determined by committee guidelines, government resources, pilot studies, and national institute resources. Notably, carrier screening programs exhibited greater worldwide inconsistency compared to newborn screening programs. The comparative analysis of developed countries serves to guide emerging nations. To address inequalities at both local and global levels, there is a need to enhance the establishment, development, and implementation of carrier screening programs. Furthermore, cost analyses of screening should be conducted, and adequate funding should be allocated to countries. In conclusion, this review highlights the preventive potential of carrier screening for rare diseases and emphasizes the importance of improving carrier screening programs globally to achieve equitable healthcare outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".