ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Evaluation of the digital genetic assistant in technology assisted genetic counseling for genetic carrier screening.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Genetic Counseling Modalities on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Premarital Screening Intentions for Thalassemia Prevention: A Multi-Site Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Trial
- The role of pathology laboratories in integrating genetic testing into Australian primary care: an implementation science perspective.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Perspective - The Role of Peripheral Outreach Programs for Genetic Disorders for Optimizing Healthcare.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Still Becoming: Global Reflections on the Future of the Genetic Counseling Profession.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Levers and constraints on general practitioners offering and managing reproductive genetic carrier screening in Australian primary care: a rich graphic of the complex context.BMC medical genomics · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid growth in genetic testing usage resulted in declining availability of genetic counselors (GCs) per ordered tests, prolonging the waiting times for face-to-face (F2F) counseling. We evaluated the digital genetic assistant (DGA) for reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) in a real-life clinical setting using a "couple-based" paradigm. The platform provides digital patient intake and automated counseling for low-risk individuals, as well as GC-facing tools that reduce administrative burden in patient-related activities. Among 225 couples undergoing RGCS during the study period, 4% had high-risk results requiring F2F counseling and an additional 4% of low-risk couples requested F2F counseling, suggesting that DGA use reduced GC-participant F2F interactions by 69.3%. GC evaluations revealed that the DGA triaging algorithm was accurate and surveys demonstrated high degrees of user comprehension and satisfaction. These results highlight the utility of digital platforms for patient intake and delivery of low-risk results in settings with limited genetic counseling resources.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.