MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033080442 · doi:10.3390/ijns6020046

Performance of a Three-Tier (IRT-DNA-IRT) Cystic Fibrosis Screening Algorithm in British Columbia

2020· article· en· W3033080442 on OpenAlexaffabout
Graham Sinclair, Vanessa McMahon, Amy Schellenberg, Tanya N. Nelson, Mark Chilvers, Hilary Vallance

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neonatal Screening · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmCystic fibrosisMedicineComputer sciencePsychologyClinical psychologyArtificial intelligenceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Newborn screening for Cystic Fibrosis has been implemented in most programs worldwide, but the approach used varies, including combinations of immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT) and CFTR mutation analysis on one or more specimens. The British Columbia (BC) newborn screening program tests ~45,000 infants per year in BC and the Yukon Territory, covering almost 1.5 million km2 in western Canada. CF screening was initiated using an IRT-DNA-IRT approach with a second bloodspot card at 21 days of age for all CFTR mutation heterozygotes and any non-carriers in the top 0.1% for IRT. This second IRT was implemented to avoid sweat testing of infants without persistent hypertrypsinemia, reducing the burden of travel for families. Over nine years (2010–2018), 401,977 infants were screened and CF was confirmed in 76, and a further 28 were deemed CF screen positive inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID). Day 21 IRT was normal in 880 CFTR mutation carriers who were quoted a very low CF risk and offered optional sweat testing. Only 13% of families opted for sweat testing and a total of 1036 sweat tests were avoided. There were six false negative CF cases (and three CFSPID) due to a low initial IRT or no CFTR mutations. Although one CFSPID case had a normal repeat IRT result, the addition of the day 21 IRT did not contribute to any CF false negatives.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.281
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Neonatal ScreeningSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207