Attitudes of Parents With a Child With Autosomal Recessive Disease Toward Consanguinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consanguineous marriages are known to increase the risk of autosomal recessive genetic disorder. In this study we aimed to examine the perspective and attitudes of parents with 1 or more affected children by an AR disease toward consanguineous marriages. A total of 285 parents completed a self-administered survey. The participants belonged to 2 groups: a clinical sample defined as consanguineous parents with at least 1 child affected by an AR genetic disease, while the community sample were non-consanguineous parents. The questionnaire was about the subjects’ attitudes toward consanguinity and was divided into 2 parts: sociocultural and health attitudes. The clinical sample showed positive sociocultural views toward consanguineous marriages compared to the community sample as they had statistically significant differences regarding the belief it decreases divorce, general support of consanguinity in general and more specifically encouragement of their children to marry a relative. Regarding health attitudes, statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups in 6 out of 7 examined variables. Despite the well-known associated reproductive and genetic risks of consanguinity, consanguineous subjects continue to support and positively view such marriages.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".