MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling

2000· review· en· W2165311675 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaB.C. Women's Hospital & Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChorionic villus samplingAmniocentesisMedicineObstetricsPrenatal diagnosisPregnancyGold standard (test)Amniotic fluidGynecologySampling (signal processing)FetusRadiologyGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive prenatal diagnosis continues to be the gold standard for pregnancies at increased risk of chromosomal aneuploidy or other genetic disease. Chorionic villus sampling is the procedure of choice for the first trimester. Early amniocentesis has been shown to carry increased risks of pregnancy loss, amniotic fluid leakage and talipes equinovarus. Mid-trimester amniocentesis continues to be the most common form of invasive prenatal diagnosis, with post-procedural loss rates of between 0.5 and 1%. This present review summarizes information on technique risks, looks at new technology applied to invasive prenatal diagnosis testing, and reports on new diagnoses that could be made either by amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling.

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 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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.271 · 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