Prenatal testing for Down syndrome: The perspectives of parents of individuals with Down syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory, descriptive study examined the views and opinions of parents of individuals with Down syndrome (DS) related to prenatal testing for DS and the use of age-based criteria to determine eligibility for this testing. This survey-based study was designed in collaboration with parents of individuals with DS and the British Columbia-based Lower Mainland Down Syndrome Society (LMDSS). The survey was a 26-item, self-report questionnaire, which was distributed by the LMDSS. Out of the 246 potentially eligible individuals that were mailed surveys, 101 participants returned their completed surveys. The availability of prenatal screening and diagnostic testing for DS was perceived positively by 55.1% and 64.7% of parents, respectively. More than half (60.2%) of participants felt that prenatal diagnostic testing for DS should be available to all pregnant women, regardless of age. In this study, views of Canadian parents of individuals with DS aligned with the prenatal testing policy recently adopted in the USA (whereby any woman, regardless of age or risk factors, can opt for prenatal diagnostic testing) rather than with new Canadian policy (whereby eligibility for diagnostic testing is no longer offered on the basis of age, but on the basis of other risk factors).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".