MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Key Features of a Genetic Nondiscrimination Policy

2024· article· en· W4402859285 on OpenAlexaff
Diya Uberoi, Gratien Dalpé, Katherine Cheung, Emma Kondrup, Nicole Palmour, Thalia Arawi, Mykhailo Arych, Miguel Ángel Ramiro Avilés, Carmen Ayuso, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Katherine D. Blizinsky, Yvonne Bombard, Subhashini Chandrasekharan, Brian Hon‐Yin Chung, Aisling de Paor, Megan Doerr, Edward S. Dove, Charles Dupras, Palmira Granados-Moreno, Dov Greenbaum, Hrefna Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, Hazar Haidar, Chih‐hsing Ho, Saumya Shekhar Jamuar, Hannah Kim, Audrey Lebret, Angus W. MacDonald, Timo Minssen, Jamal Nasir, Dianne Nicol, Pilar Nicolás, Margaret Otlowski, Athira P. S. Nair, Anya E. R. Prince, Mark A. Rothstein, Rosalyn Ryan, Guillaume Sillon, Kshitij Kumar Singh, Ian Stedman, Jane Tiller, Ine Van Hoyweghen, Ma’n H. Zawati, Yann Joly

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversité de MontréalOntario GenomicsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsKey (lock)CriminologyComputer securityComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Governments worldwide have become increasingly cognizant of the spread of genetic discrimination (negative treatment or harm on the basis of actual or presumed genetic characteristics). Despite efforts by a number of governments to establish regulations addressing this phenomenon, public concern about genetic discrimination persists. Objective: To identify key elements of an optimal genetic nondiscrimination policy and inform policymakers as they seek to allay genetic nondiscrimination and related public anxieties. Evidence Review: Sixty multidisciplinary experts from 20 jurisdictions worldwide were consulted to understand their views on effective genetic nondiscrimination policies. Following standard requirements of the Delphi method, 3 rounds of surveys over the course of 1.5 years were conducted. Round 1 focused on assessing participants' understanding of the intricacies of existing genetic nondiscrimination policies, while rounds 2 and 3 invited participants to reflect on specific means of implementing a more effective regime. A total of 60 respondents participated in the first round, 53 participated in round 2, and 43 participated in round 3. Findings: While responses varied across disciplines, there was consensus that binding regulations that reach across various sectors are most useful in preventing genetic discrimination. Overall, experts agreed that human rights-based approaches are well suited to preventing genetic discrimination. Experts also agreed that explicit prohibition of genetic discrimination within nondiscrimination policies can highlight the importance of genetic nondiscrimination as a fundamental right and ensure robust protection at a national level. While most participants believed the international harmonization of genetic nondiscrimination laws would facilitate data sharing worldwide, they also recognized that regulations must reflect the sociocultural differences that exist among regions. Conclusions and Relevance: As the reach of genetic discrimination continues to evolve alongside developments in genomics, strategic policy responses that are harmonious at the international and state levels will be critical to address this phenomenon. In seeking to establish comprehensive frameworks, policymakers will need to be mindful of regional and local circumstances that influence the need for and efficacy of unique genetic nondiscrimination approaches across diverse contexts.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0130.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207