MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535905227 · doi:10.1002/pd.4944

Current controversies in prenatal diagnosis 2: for those women screened by NIPT using cell free DNA, maternal serum markers are obsolete

2016· article· en· W2535905227 on OpenAlexaff
Yuval Yaron, Jon Hyett, Sylvie Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAneuploidyCell-free fetal DNAPrenatal diagnosisMedicinePrenatal screeningObstetricsPregnancyGynecologyFalse positive rateAdverse effectFetusInternal medicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What's already known about this topic? Multiple studies have shown a strong association between abnormal levels of serum markers used for aneuploidy screening and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Despite this strong association, given a low detection rate and high false positive rate, the predictive accuracy of these biomarkers still falls short of the ideal for clinically useful screening tests. What does this study adds? This report summarizes an oral debate presented at the 20th International Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy in Berlin, Germany, on 12 July 2016. The arguments for and against abandoning serum markers for the prediction of adverse obstetrical outcomes in women having had NIPT to screen for common aneuploidies 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 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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0120.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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