Second‐trimester maternal serum screening for Down syndrome in <i>in vitro</i> fertilization pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether second-trimester maternal serum triple marker screening results differ between in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies and naturally conceived pregnancies. METHODS: Second-trimester maternal serum triple marker screening results from 88 IVF pregnancies were compared with 596 naturally conceived pregnancies (controls). Controls were matched to each IVF pregnancy by maternal age, gestational age and date of blood collection. All pregnancies in the study were known to have normal outcome. Multiple of the median (MoM) levels of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), unconjugated estriol (uE3) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), and the false-positive rate for Down syndrome were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in analyte levels or in Down syndrome false-positive rate were observed between the IVF and naturally conceived pregnancies. CONCLUSION: IVF patients can be counselled about maternal serum triple marker screening in the same manner as patients with naturally conceived pregnancies. There is no evidence to support the general use of analyte correction factors in the interpretation of second-trimester maternal serum screen results in IVF pregnancies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".