Assessing the Impact of Patient Characteristics on Genetic Clinical Pathways: A Regression Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular genetic techniques allow for the diagnosing of hereditary diseases and congenital abnormalities prenatally. A high variability of treatments exists, engendering an inappropriate clinical response, an inefficient use of resources, and the violation of the principle of the equality of treatment for equal needs. The proposed framework is based on modeling clinical pathways that contribute to identifying major causes of variability in treatments justified by the clinical needs’ variability as well as depending on individual characteristics. An electronic data collection method for high-risk pregnant women addressing genetic facilities and laboratories was implemented. The collected data were analyzed retrospectively with two aims. The first is to identify how the whole activity of genetic services can be broken down into different clinical pathways. This was performed by building a flow chart with the help of doctors. The second aim consists of measuring the variability, within and among, the different paths due to individual characteristics. A set of statistical models was developed to determine the impact of the patient characteristics on the clinical pathway and its length. The results show the importance of considering these characteristics together with the clinical information to define the care pathway and the use of resources.
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 | 0.032 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".