Accuracy of trisomy 18 screening using the second‐trimester triple test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the calculated risk for trisomy 18 assigned to individual women screened with the second-trimester triple test. METHODS: The study was based on 382598 women screened in the Ontario Maternal Serum Screening Programme between October 1993 and September 2000. Of the women screened, 111 cases of trisomy 18 were identified. Originally, 92874 women were screened using a risk cut-off level method. Estimated risks of trisomy 18 were calculated by applying published population parameters for the remaining women screened using a fixed analyte cut-off method. Women were ranked according to their individual risk for trisomy 18 syndrome in decreasing order and divided into 12 groups. The mean calculated risks of having an affected pregnancy at term for each group were compared with the birth prevalence of the corresponding group after allowing for spontaneous fetal losses. RESULTS: Agreement between the mean calculated risks and the observed prevalence was seen across the entire risk range, although women identified as having high-risk pregnancies had an actual prevalence that was somewhat lower than that estimated by the screen. CONCLUSION: The calculated risk for trisomy 18 syndrome assigned to the individual woman on the basis of the risk cut-off method accurately reflects their risk of having a term trisomy 18 syndrome pregnancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| 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 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".