MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408532083 · doi:10.1016/j.gimo.2025.102447

P599: An efficient alternative model of genetic counseling to deliver services at the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region in Quebec

2025· article· en· W4408532083 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Tardif, Marie‐Jacqueline Thomas, Josianne Leblanc, Rachel Guerard, Christina Boudreau, Julie Godbout, Tania Cruz Mariño

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics in Medicine Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAINTGeographyHistoryArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Utilization of genetic counseling (GC) clinics in pediatrics and general genetics has been presented as a model of care that increases access to genetic healthcare services.A number of these models require triage of specific indications for GC clinic appointments, while other indications are scheduled with physician geneticists with or without a GC.In our practice, initial genetic evaluations are primarily conducted with a physician or nurse practitioner (APRN) and GC and frequently exceed one hour.We evaluated potential outcomes of universal initial GC clinic appointments for patients seen in our pediatric and general genetics practice.Methods: A workflow for GC first appointments was created with our physician and GCs, starting with limited triage of referrals for appropriateness, followed by the initial GC visit.During this visit the GC would collect patient medical and family history and pick one of four choices: 1) select genetic testing and provide pre-test GC with follow up result disclosure and assessment with a GC and physician or APRN, 2) select genetic testing and provide pre-test GC with GC only follow up, 3) provide genetic counseling only with no testing or further evaluation needed, or 4) defer test selection to evaluation with physician or APRN and genetic counselor.Our team elected to have all GC-initiated exome and genome tests followed up with a physician or APRN and GC appointment for result disclosure and interpretation.Follow up appointments were categorized as: 1) GC not needed or 2) combined GC and physician/APRN care.Four GCs retrospectively reviewed 142 patients (79 new, 63 follow up) scheduled with physician or APRN providers in August, 2024, and provided their predicted assessment for these patients if they were instead seen by a GC first.Actual content of each visit was also noted and divided into 9 categories with the ability to select multiple categories for each visit: 1) GC medical/family/interval history, 2) GC pre-test counseling, 3) GC posttest counseling, 4) physician/ APRN medical/family/interval history, 5) physician/APRN pre-test counseling, 6) physician/APRN posttest counseling, 7) physician/APRN ordered nongenetic studies, 8) physician/APRN treating patient, 9) physician/APRN physical exam.Results: Among new patient appointments, 19 (24%) were predicted to receive care only from a GC with another 46 (58%) having testing initiated by a GC with result disclosure and interpretation provided with a physician/APRN in follow up.Further assessment and potential test selection with a physician/APRN and GC was the predicted outcome for 13 (17%) of new patient visits.One new patient seen for a positive newborn screen did not fit the proposed framework and required initial evaluation with an APRN and GC.GCs were determined not to be needed for 40 (63%) of follow up patients.With actual outcomes, GCs were involved with 11 patients whose needs could have been met by only seeing an MD/APRN, primarily collecting interval histories for established patients.The physician or APRN performed a physical exam in all but one visit.GCs were not involved in 33 (23%) patient encounters. Conclusion:The predicted outcomes of our model for universal GC first appointments is consistent with reports from other pediatric and general genetic counseling clinics, suggesting that even without filtering for specific indications, GCs are able to take on nearly a quarter of new patient referrals to a pediatric and general genetics clinic without further assessment needed by a physician, APRN, or physician assistant.Patients that do require additional care with the genetics team may benefit from having two separate, shorter appointments and testing completed by the second appointment for around half.Ongoing evaluations of patient and provider satisfaction, efficiency, and access are needed to more completely determine the value of this model.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics in Medicine OpenSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207