Prospective experience with integrated prenatal screening and first trimester combined screening for trisomy 21 in a large Canadian urban center
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of integrated prenatal screening (IPS) and first trimester combined screening (FTS) for trisomy 21 in a large Canadian urban center. METHOD: Prospective data collection on women having FTS at one center from 1 November 2003 to 31 December 2005, or IPS at another from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005. A positive screen was defined as adjusted risk for trisomy 21 >or= 1/200 at term or nuchal translucency >or= 3.5 mm. RESULTS: 32 227 and 14 487 women were screened in the IPS and FTS programs, respectively. Detection rates (DRs) and positive rates (PRs) for trisomy 21 were 88.4% (95% CI: 81.6-91.5) and 3.3% (95% CI: 3.1-3.5) for IPS, and 83.9% (95% CI: 74.7-93.0) and 4.0% (95% CI: 3.7-4.3) for FTS. DR adjusted for viability bias was 85.2% for IPS and 78.6% for FTS. Applying both the screens to the 78 134 women who submitted prenatal screens in Ontario in 2005, thereby eliminating the effect of differences in the distribution of maternal age between screens, gave a DR (corrected for viability bias) and PR of 81 and 3.1% for IPS, and 76 and 3.4% for FTS. CONCLUSIONS: Both IPS and FTS perform well and are feasible in a practical clinical setting.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it