What parents are told after prenatal diagnosis of a sex chromosome abnormality: interview and questionnaire study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the prenatal diagnosis of a sex chromosome anomaly is first communicated to parents. DESIGN: Health professionals were interviewed by telephone and the conversation was taped; parents were sent questionnaires at 1 month after diagnosis and those who responded were sent another at 6 months. PARTICIPANTS: 29 health professionals who had recently informed parents that a sex chromosome anomaly had been identified in an apparently anatomically normal, viable fetus. 23 mothers and partners who had been informed of such a diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health professionals' knowledge about sex chromosome anomalies and parents' responses to information provided by health professionals. RESULTS: Analysis of the telephone interviews identified great variation in what different healthcare professionals know, think, and say about the same sex chromosome anomaly. The small numbers and the low response rate for the questionnaire (39% for women and 30% for men) meant that statistical analysis was not appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: It is essential for obstetric units to have an established protocol for giving results and for all staff who communicate results to parents to have accurate, up to date information about the condition identified.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".