Survey of the Definition of Fetal Viability and the Availability, Indications, and Decision Making Processes for Post‐Viability Termination of Pregnancy for Fetal Abnormalities and Health Conditions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the definition of fetal viability and the availability, indications, and decision making processes for post-viability termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormalities and health conditions in Canada. An online survey of members of the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists, and the Canadian Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine who provide direct counselling to, or management of, prenatal patients in Canada (total sample size 815). Results of this study showed that the majority of respondents indicated that their centre will offer post-viability termination of pregnancy (98/123; 80 %). Sixty-seven percent (68/101) of respondents reported the definition of fetal viability to be 24 weeks' gestation. Most respondents reported that a collaborative decision making process was used to determine if post-viability termination of pregnancy would be offered (136/170; 80 %). For conditions presumed to be lethal/likely lethal, the majority of respondents would "sometimes" or "always" offer post-viability termination of pregnancy, whereas for conditions presumed to have a mild effect, the majority of respondents would "rarely" or "never" offer post-viability termination of pregnancy. Ninety percent (77/86) of respondents reported that perinatal hospice is offered as an alternative to termination of pregnancy. In conclusion, this study suggests that although post-viability termination is available in many provinces in Canada, variation in the definition of fetal viability and indications appear to exist. While these variations may lead to unequal access to post-viability termination of pregnancy across Canada, they might also represent the complexity of the decision making process and the importance of examining individual factors to ensure that the most appropriate decision is made in each case.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".