Women???s Experience of Maternal Serum Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal serum screening (MSS) is an increasingly popular measure for detecting Down syndrome, trisomy 18, and open neural tube defects antenatally. Several studies, however, have demonstrated that women in general do not know much about the disorders being screened for or the meaning of the results. Therefore, focus groups were conducted at six sites across the province of Ontario, Canada; sites included northern, rural, urban, suburban, and inner-city communities. Each group comprised 10 women (on average), who were interviewed using a semistructured guide to explore their ideas, feelings, and views about MSS. The 60 participants, who were 16 to 44 years old, had recently given birth but were not currently pregnant. They had an average of two children and, with two exceptions, were married. More than half of the women had completed some type of postsecondary education. Some women had a definite need to be reassured about their infants’ well-being, whereas others were willing to “let nature take its course” and confront the outcome. Views about abortion and the ethics of prenatal genetic testing varied widely. Some women believed it was wrong to bring disabled children into the world. Others were concerned about intolerance of an “imperfect” child. Decisions were influenced by the woman’s or her partner’s perceived ability to cope with a child who has Down syndrome. Personal values aside, women depended on their sources of social support (partners, relatives, and friends) for help in making decisions. Participants wished to receive information primarily from their physicians and in an accurate and unbiased manner. They wanted to receive information on genetic screening as early as possible during their prenatal care, preferably at the fist or second visit. They wanted to know what the test could tell them, the positive and negative aspects of testing, how to interpret the results, and all options available, including abortion. Women wanted their physicians to convey the test results, whether positive or negative, in an accurate and timely manner. Women were opposed to being contacted only if the results were abnormal.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".