tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6173393362223742012.post182164892621728347..comments2023-08-24T08:30:25.608-07:00Comments on Gene Sherpas: Personalized Medicine and You: CGCs, NPs and Me!!! Genetics will never be the same!Steve Murphy MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11774190000307343476noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6173393362223742012.post-54942546298390380992008-10-08T10:51:00.000-07:002008-10-08T10:51:00.000-07:00I took this from an article that I'm writing f...I took this from an article that I'm writing for why having computers do all of the work won't work: "After a family member has a positive test result, a negative test result in the rest of one's family may bring relief because it indicates that they are not at an increased risk of developing the same condition. However, if one's family history is indicative of a genetic health condition, a negative test result is not informative because the test does not help determine which family member may or may not be at increased risk of developing the same condition. <br><br>Psychological discomfort can arise among individuals who are at an increased risk for developing the disease or for passing on the gene mutation genes to an offspring.<br><br>Studies have indicated that carriers of BRCA1 have a higher distress level than noncarriers after they are found to have a mutation in the BRCA1 gene."<br><br>The article that I took this from is not yet published...this section of the article is apart of a series of articles I'm working on (10 articles in all).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6173393362223742012.post-43977058828440570812008-10-08T17:53:00.000-07:002008-10-08T17:53:00.000-07:00Yes, I will. But, I said that councilors will alwa...Yes, I will. But, I said that councilors will always have a role. After all, friendly tech support voice will always be needed, and I don't want to be that, nor would I be any good at it, and neither would most doctors.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10433343566083450681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6173393362223742012.post-81154215315000811412008-10-08T18:10:00.000-07:002008-10-08T18:10:00.000-07:00anonymous: um, you mean that a negative BRCA test ...anonymous: um, you mean that a <em>negative</em> BRCA test does not substantially reduce the risk for breast cancer? Yes, that's a relevant result that should be reported with penetrance. Usually, it's not, and that's why I enforce reporting prevalence in my <a href="http://www.helixgene.org/about/4Ps" rel="nofollow">HelixGene reports</a>.<br><br>If you are a genetic councilor, anonymous, I change you to write a very simple logical equation that refutes the common assumption that a negative result of a high penetrance test means substantial reduced risk.<br><br>And of course computers won't do <em>all</em> the work. But something has to crunch the numbers and generate reports, and if you can't write out the formula and do the math, then that's not going to be you. Studies show that 85% of <em>doctors</em> usually can't. So, maybe you'll be the one who reads a compilation of reports in a sympathetic tone.Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10433343566083450681noreply@blogger.com