The influence of risk estimates obtained from maternal serum screening on amniocentesis rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of Down syndrome risk estimates obtained from maternal serum screening (MSS) on women's choices regarding amniocentesis. METHODS: Women who screened positive for Down syndrome by an Ontario MSS program between 1993 and 1998 were grouped on the basis of their risk estimate and ethnicity. Amniocentesis uptake rates between the groups were compared in order to determine how the MSS risk estimate influenced uptake. RESULTS: Analysis of 16 792 women showed that amniocentesis uptake rates increased as the estimated risk increased. Uptake in women < or = 35 was higher than that for older women (70% vs 60%, p = 0.001). Uptake in Caucasian and Asian women was higher than the uptake in Black women (67% vs 49%, p = 0.001). Women aged 35 years or older were more likely to proceed with amniocentesis if the MSS risk estimate was higher than their age-specific risk. CONCLUSION: The increase in amniocentesis rate paralleled the increase in MSS risk estimate for Down syndrome. Risk-specific amniocentesis rates are higher in women aged less than 35 years. Women aged 35 years or older whose risk estimate by MSS is lower than their age-specific risk are less likely to opt for amniocentesis.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".