Decision Analysis of Prenatal Testing for Chromosomal Disorders: What Do the Preferences of Pregnant Women Tell Us?
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
Current guidelines recommend offering invasive testing for chromosomal disorders only to women who are aged 35 or older, or who are at similarly elevated risk (as determined by maternal serum and/or ultrasonographic screening). We conducted a decision analysis, using preference scores obtained from pregnant women, to determine whether current guidelines maximize the health-related quality of life of these women. If only miscarriage and chromosomal abnormalities are considered, the expected value of testing exceeds that of not testing for women 30 years of age or older. However, if a comprehensive range of relevant testing outcomes is considered, testing offers a higher expected value than not testing, regardless of age. Furthermore, patient preferences for specific testing outcomes play a much more substantial role in determining the course of action with the highest expected value than does the probability of any of the possible testing outcomes. The current age- and risk-based guideline for prenatal diagnosis does not maximize expected value and fails to appropriately consider individual patient preferences. For counseling purposes, how an individual values the presence and timing of fetal chromosomal information should be carefully understood.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it