Interests and Experiences of Young Adults with Muscular Dystrophy in Receiving Genetic Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing public awareness of genetic research, increased availability of genetic testing options, and the recent arrival of several gene-targeted therapies have combined to make genetic testing a topic of interest within many disease communities, including muscular dystrophies. We sought to investigate the genetic information received, the genetic services provided, the genetic information and services of interest to young adults with muscular dystrophy, and to identify existing gaps in the delivery of genetic information and services. Young adults with muscular dystrophy were surveyed about their interests and experiences in receiving genetic information/testing. Surveys were completed by 226 young adults with muscular dystrophy (150 male, 72 female; mean age = 21.6 years, range = 16-25 years) from Canada and the United States. Approximately 60% or less of respondents felt knowledgeable about genetic topics, including inheritance and reproductive options. Only 28% of respondents had previously met with a genetic counselor and 60% of respondents wanted to obtain more information. Findings highlight gaps between the receipt of and interest in genetic information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".