MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205837456 · doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.249

Preferences for prenatal tests for Down syndrome: an international comparison of the views of pregnant women and health professionals

2015· article· en· W2205837456 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Hill, Jo-Ann Johnson, Sylvie Langlois, Hyun Lee, Stephanie Winsor, Brigid Dineley, Marisa Horniachek, Faustina Lalatta, Luisa Ronzoni, Angela N. Barrett, Henna V. Advani, Mahesh Choolani, Ron Rabinowitz, Eva Pajkrt, Rachèl V. van Schendel, Lidewij Henneman, Wieke Rommers, Caterina M. Bilardo, Paula Rendeiro, Maria João Rodrigues Ferreira Ribeiro, José Rocha, Ida Charlotte Bay Lund, Olav Bjørn Petersen, Naja Becher, Ida Vogel, Vigdís Stefánsdóttir, Sigrún Ingvarsdóttir, Helga Gottfreðsdóttir, Stephen Morris, Lyn S. Chitty

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Human Genetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
FundersProgramme Grants for Applied ResearchGreat Ormond Street Hospital for ChildrenNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsHealth professionalsMedicineMiscarriageTest (biology)PreferenceFamily medicineViewpointsPrenatal screeningEnvironmental healthNursingHealth carePregnancyPrenatal diagnosisPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations115
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Human GeneticsSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207