Women's experience of maternal serum screening.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the ideas, opinions, feelings, and experiences of women regarding prenatal genetic screening, specifically maternal serum screening (MSS). DESIGN: Qualitative technique of focus groups. SETTING: Northern, rural, inner-city, urban, and suburban communities in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Women who had given birth to babies from January 1994 to May 1996, but who were not currently pregnant (n = 60). METHOD: Six focus groups composed of women living in various communities who had recently given birth to babies explored the experience of MSS. MAIN FINDINGS: Women want informed choice about prenatal genetic screening. Three factors influenced women's decisions to undergo or decline prenatal genetic screening: their personal values, including their philosophy of life, moral, and religious values, and attitudes regarding Down syndrome and disability; social support including their partners, families, and friends; and quality of information from health care providers. Women want their providers to give them information personally; they want to receive the information as early as possible in prenatal care to allow time for reflection; and they want unbiased, accurate information in order to make a decision that is in keeping with their personal values and beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of women's ideas, opinions, feelings, and experiences regarding MSS suggests specific ways health care providers can facilitate informed decision making in prenatal screening. Providing information about genetic testing needs to be individualized, with women actively participating in the decision-making process. Information needs described by these women could apply to other prenatal genetic tests that might be available in the future.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it