Assessing Health-Related Quality-of-Life in Prenatal Diagnosis Comparing Chorionic Villi Sampling and Amniocentesis: A Technical Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To assess the health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) effects of chorionic villi sampling (CVS) and genetic amniocentesis (GA) prenatal diagnosis, including factors related to both the processes and the outcomes. Study Design. The HRQL of one hundred twenty six women participating in a randomized controlled clinical trial of CVS versus GA in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario was assessed in four interviews at weeks 8, 13, 18, and 22 of pregnancy. Statistical analyses included analysis of variance, repeated measures analysis of covariance, chi-square, Fisher’s exact test, Student’s t-tests, and paired t-tests. Results. Utility scores for patients undergoing CVS exceeded those for GA patients at week 18 (p = 0.04). Utility scores for hypothetical health states did not differ significantly by trial arm. Conclusions. CVS results in slightly improved HRQL relative to GA during the second trimester of pregnancy. This advantage needs to be weighed against the high disutility patients attach to infrequent outcomes associated with pregnancy losses, equivocal diagnoses, and diagnostic inaccuracy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".