MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296280540 · doi:10.3109/14767058.2016.1152253

Canadian women’s attitudes toward noninvasive prenatal testing of fetal DNA in maternal plasma*

2016· article· en· W2296280540 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gali Pariente, Lara Hasan, Yifat Gadot, Leanne R. De Souza, Gerald Lebovic, Howard Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleObstetricsFamily medicinePopulationFetusPrenatal carePregnancyPrenatal screeningCell-free fetal DNAPrenatal diagnosisPsychologyGeneticsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the perceptions and attitudes of Canadian women to Noninvasive Prenatal Testing of fetal DNA. STUDY DESIGN: A designed questionnaire was administered to women attending the outpatient antenatal clinic at a tertiary urban hospital. Attitudes to current and new prenatal screening modalities were assessed using a five-point Likert scale. Bowker's test of symmetry was used to compare individual responses regarding the two screening modalities. Changes in women's responses pre- and post-delivery were also compared. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-nine women were enrolled in this study. 88% of women state that they would perform prenatal screening via fetal DNA in the maternal plasma if available. When compared to conventional screening, significantly less women believe that the NIPT should be available upon request for non-medical traits (36.4% versus 60.4%, p < 0.001). When compared to their answer before delivery, more women agreed that screening with fetal DNA in maternal plasma could be used in a negative way to select for desired non-medical traits such as gender. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fetal DNA in the maternal plasma is widely accepted in our Canadian population as a future method of noninvasive prenatal screening despite recognition of certain ethical concerns. This information can be used when implementing new genetic screening programs.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal MedicineSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207