MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137127609 · doi:10.1002/pd.4718

Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: should a fetal exome be used in the assessment of a dysmorphic or malformed fetus?

2015· article· en· W2137127609 on OpenAlexaff
Lyn S. Chitty, Jan M. Friedman, Sylvie Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsExome sequencingMedicineExomePrenatal diagnosisPregnancyFetusGenetic testingObstetricsGenetic counselingPediatricsGeneticsMutationBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What's already known about this topic? Whole‐exome sequencing is a comprehensive genetic test with a diagnostic yield of 25–30% in postnatal cohorts of undiagnosed patients suspected of having a genetic disorder. Reports on the use of whole‐exome sequencing prenatally are limited to case reports and small series. What does this study add? This report summarizes an oral debate presented at the 19th International Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy in Washington, DC, USA on 14 July 2015. The benefits, limitations and challenges of performing fetal exome sequencing to investigate a pregnancy presenting with a dysmorphic or malformed fetus are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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