A nationwide cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia for the assessment of understanding and practices of clinicians towards personalized genetic testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to plan and facilitate the culture of personalized / precision medicine in medical practices within any healthcare institution, it is requisite for healthcare professionals like clinicians to have a clear understanding and approach towards the practices of personalized genetic testing. This nationwide cross-sectional study aimed to measure the perceptions and knowledge of clinicians towards personalized genetic testing and assess their current practices of personalized genetic testing in clinical settings through an online self-administered questionnaire in Saudi Arabia. The results of the study revealed that almost two-fifths of participants were responsible for ordering genetic tests directly (39.0%). The main concerns of the participants were the lack of clinical practice guidelines on personalized genetic tests (50.0%) and the cost of these tests (50.9%). The participants revealed that the genetic tests had influenced the patients' treatment plans (50.0%) and helped them understand the risks of their patients' disorders (52.3%). The study revealed a gap in understanding and implementing personalized genetic testing in Saudi Arabia, with enthusiasm tempered by challenges like insufficient knowledge, lack of guidelines, and practical applications' barriers. Effective integration of genetic testing into clinical practice should focus on enhancing medical education, developing clinical guidelines, and improving patient awareness about genetic tests that can lead to an improved personalized healthcare approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".