Newborn Dried Blood Spot Screening: Residual Specimen Storage Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional newborn dried blood spot screening (NDBS) has expanded in recent years to include upwards of 50 different conditions in many states. Once the screening tests are complete, the residual blood specimens (RBSs) that remain are most often available for quality assurance and public health research. The articles by Botkin et al1 and Bombard et al2 contained in this issue of Pediatrics investigate the attitudes of parents in both the United States ( n = 3855) and Canada ( n = 66) toward program policies that allow for the possible storage and secondary use of RBSs. Figure 1 illustrates the variability in the United States regarding the length of time RBSs are currently stored. Currently, 14 programs save RBSs for ≥21 years, and these programs serve ∼45% of all US births. Although the need for RBSs for laboratory quality assurance, which may include long-term needs, is generally understood (and accepted), the way in which programs disclose (or fail to disclose) information about these uses and the manner by which parents may choose to opt in or out of RBS storage and/or potential research uses are the subject of much discussion and controversy. FIGURE 1 Storage time for RBSs in … Address correspondence to Bradford L. Therrell, Jr, MS, PhD, National Newborn Screening and Genetics Resource Center, 1912 W. Anderson Lane #210, Austin, TX 78757. E-mail: therrell{at}uthscsa.edu
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".