Genetic testing and counseling for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: An evidence‐based practice resource of the National Society of Genetic Counselors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a common hereditary condition affecting approximately 1 in 500 adults. It is characterized by marked clinical heterogeneity with individuals experiencing minimal to no symptoms, while others may have more severe outcomes including heart failure and sudden cardiac death. Genetic testing for HCM is increasingly available due to advances in DNA sequencing technologies and reduced costs. While a diagnosis of HCM is a well-supported indication for genetic testing and genetic counseling, incorporation of genetic services into the clinical setting is often limited outside of expert centers. As genetic counseling and testing have become more accessible and convenient, optimal integration of genomic data into the clinical care of individuals with HCM should be instituted, including delivery via genetic counseling. Drawing on recommendations from recent disease guidelines and systematic evidence reviews, we highlight key recommendations for HCM genetic testing and counseling. This practice resource provides a comprehensive framework to guide healthcare providers in the process of genetic test selection, variant classification, and cascade testing for genetic evaluation of HCM.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".