MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387930811 · doi:10.1002/jgc4.1804

Landscape of genetic counseling in the Philippines

2023· article· en· W4387930811 on OpenAlexaff
Peter James B. Abad, Ma‐Am Joy R. Tumulak, Romer J. Guerbo, Leniza De Castro-Hamoy, Niecy Grace Bautista, Ramonito Nuique, Frances Isabelle Jacalan, Gay Luz Talapian, Eva Belingon Felipe‐Dimog, John Benedict B. Lagarde, Starlene Joy Plaga, Edbert Jasper M. Jover, Kristine Dawn Morales, Graciel Mae R. Canoy, Mercy Laurino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Genetic Counseling · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic counselingScope (computer science)Government (linguistics)MedicineGenetic testingPublic healthProfessional developmentScope of practiceMedical educationFamily medicineNursingHealth carePolitical scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we report on the professional development of genetic counselors in the Philippines as we discuss the status of genetic counseling training and research, along with the roles and scope of practice of genetic counselors. The development of a master's level training program for non-physician genetic counselors in the Philippines initiated in 2011 was in response to the increasing demand for genetic counseling services. There are currently 18 locally trained genetic counselors who are practicing in various fields including newborn screening, pediatrics, cancer, prenatal and preconception, neurology, and research. Despite the success of the genetic counseling training program, various professional challenges hinder maximizing the impact of genetic counselors in the health system. The challenges discussed in this paper include the limited number of genetic counselors, the lack of government positions officially recognizing the 'genetic counselor' title, and the absence of a regulatory framework. These issues require thorough discussion with appropriate government agencies and collaboration with other healthcare professional organizations with the ultimate goal of ensuring quality genetic counseling services nationwide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Genetic CounselingSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207