Assessing the cost of implementing the 2011 Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and Canadian College of Medical Genetics practice guidelines on the detection of fetal aneuploidies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the Canadian College of Medical Genetics published guidelines, in 2011, recommending replacement of karyotype with quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction when prenatal testing is performed because of an increased risk of a common aneuploidy. STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study's objective is to perform a cost analysis following the implementation of quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction as a stand-alone test. RESULTS: A total of 658 samples were received between 1 April 2014 and 31 August 2015: 576 amniocentesis samples and 82 chorionic villi sampling. A chromosome abnormality was identified in 14% (93/658) of the prenatal samples tested. The implementation of the 2011 Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada and the Canadian College of Medical Genetics guidelines in Edmonton and Northern Alberta resulted in a cost savings of $46 295.80. The replacement of karyotype with chromosomal microarray for some indications would be associated with additional costs. CONCLUSION: The implementation of new test methods may provide cost savings or added costs. Cost analysis is important to consider during the implementation of new guidelines or technologies. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".