MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077052856 · doi:10.1002/pd.1778

Hyperglycosylated‐hCG (h‐hCG) and Down syndrome screening in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy

2007· article· en· W2077052856 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn E. Palomaki, Louis M. Neveux, James E. Haddow, Philip Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsYork Central Hospital
FundersQuest Diagnostics
KeywordsEstriolHuman chorionic gonadotropinGestationMedicinePregnancyDown syndromeGynecologyGonadotropinAneuploidySecond trimesterFirst trimesterObstetricsHormoneEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To validate Down syndrome screening protocols that include hyperglycosylated-hCG (h-hCG) measurements. METHODS: Measuring h-hCG in 21 641 fresh first- and second-trimester maternal serum samples, but not for clinical interpretation. Nuchal translucency (NT) and pregnancy associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) measurements were available in the first trimester; alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), unconjugated estriol (uE3), and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) measurements in the second trimester. RESULTS: Of the 23 first- and 26 second-trimester Down syndrome pregnancies identified, 52 and 65% of h-hCG measurements were above the 95th centile, respectively. At a 3% false positive rate, maternal age, NT, PAPP-A and h-hCG detected 78% of cases (95% CI, 56-93%). Other combinations were consistent with previous modeling utilizing stored samples. A literature summary indicates h-hCG is as strong a marker as free-beta between 10 and 13 weeks' gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Down syndrome screening performance of h-hCG using fresh samples meets published expectations based on stored samples. h-hCG could replace free beta measurements, at gestational ages as early as 10 weeks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207