Pharmacogenetic Testing Options Relevant to Psychiatry in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:To identify and assess pharmacogenetic testing options relevant to psychiatry in Canada.Method:Searches of published literature, websites, and Standard Council of Canada’s Laboratory Directory were conducted to identify pharmacogenetic tests available in Canada. Identified tests were assessed on 8 key questions related to analytical validity, accessibility, test ordering, delivery of test results, turnaround time, cost, clinical trial evidence, and gene/allele content.Results:A total of 13 pharmacogenetic tests relevant to psychiatry in Canada were identified. All tests were highly accessible, and most were conducted in accredited laboratories. Both direct-to-consumer and clinician-gated testing were identified, with turnaround times and cost ranging from 2 to 40 days and CAD$199 to CAD$2310, respectively. Two tests were supported by randomized controlled trials. All tests met minimum gene and allele panel recommendations for psychiatry, but no 2 panels were identical. No test was unequivocally superior to all other tests.Conclusions:Pharmacogenetic testing in Canada is readily available but highly variable in terms of ordering procedures, delivery of results, turnaround times, cost, and gene/allele content. As such, it is important for psychiatrists and other health-care providers to understand the differences between the available tests to ensure appropriate selection and implementation within their practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".