Comparison of first‐tier cell‐free <scp>DNA</scp> screening for common aneuploidies with conventional publically funded screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the impact of offering cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening as a first-tier test for trisomies 21 and 18. METHODS: This is a prospective study of pregnant women undergoing conventional prenatal screening who were offered cfDNA screening in the first trimester with clinical outcomes obtained on all pregnancies. RESULTS: A total of 1198 pregnant women were recruited. The detection rate of trisomy 21 with standard screening was 83% with a false positive rate (FPR) of 5.5% compared with 100% detection and 0% FPR for cfDNA screening. The FPR of cfDNA screening for trisomies 18 and 13 was 0.09% for each. Two percent of women underwent an invasive diagnostic procedure based on screening or ultrasound findings; without the cfDNA screening, it could have been as high as 6.8%. Amongst the 640 women with negative cfDNA results and a nuchal translucency (NT) ultrasound, only 3 had an NT greater or equal to 3.5 mm: one had a normal outcome and two lost their pregnancy before 20 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: cfDNA screening has the potential to be a highly effective first-tier screening approach leading to a significant reduction of invasive diagnostic procedures. For women with a negative cfDNA screening result, NT measurement has limited clinical utility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".