Evaluation of face validity and core concepts of a novel knowledge scale for inherited heart disease: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising demand for genetic counseling has prompted the implementation of various innovative service delivery models, such as patient webinars, videos, chatbots, and the integration of genetic testing into mainstream healthcare. To ensure patients receive adequate information for informed decision-making, validated measures to assess these models are essential but currently limited in the setting of inherited heart disease. We aimed to develop and initiate validation of a cardiac knowledge scale, as part of the Multidimensional Model of Informed Choice measure, to assess whether patients (probands and family members) with inherited cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, and aortopathies are provided with sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions about genetic testing. Content expert genetic counselors identified eight core concepts addressed during genetic counseling sessions; from these, eight true/false knowledge questions were created. Questions were reviewed by 22 international cardiac genetics counselors with additional changes made. Initial validation steps of the knowledge scale were conducted at two sites: the Edmonton Medical Genetic Clinic, University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, Canada, and the Genetic Heart Disease Clinic, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, Australia. Face validity was evaluated through nine patient interviews, resulting in minor revisions to four questions and major revisions to one question. An additional five patient interviews were conducted to evaluate the revised questions. The core concepts addressed in each question were further evaluated in the context of patient decision-making about genetic testing. All participants described the eight concepts as either helpful or essential in their decision-making process. The cardiac knowledge scale is a promising measure created to evaluate the informed choice of patients and their families affected by an inherited heart condition. The next step of validation includes trialing the cardiac knowledge scale with a real-world sample of patients deciding about genetic testing for inherited heart disease.
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 | 0.078 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".