Practice patterns of prenatal and perinatal testing in Canadian cytogenetics laboratories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To survey patterns of practice in Canadian cytogenetics laboratories and evaluate whether newer technologies have influenced testing algorithms for the detection of common aneuploidies and other genomic imbalances in the prenatal and perinatal settings. METHODS: Cytogenetics laboratories across Canada were invited to participate in two patterns-of-practice surveys: one in 2016 and one in 2019. They were asked to identify the prenatal and perinatal specimen types tested at their facility and which testing methods were used for initial testing and for follow-up. RESULTS: All clinical laboratories performing prenatal testing offer rapid aneuploidy detection (RAD). Most laboratories also offer microarray analysis. A positive result is either followed up by karyotyping or no further testing is performed. For prenatal samples, a negative result may be followed up by microarray or karyotyping and is dependent on the reason for referral. For perinatal samples, availability of microarray to follow up a negative result is increasing. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2016, the availability of RAD as a first-line test in Canadian cytogenetics laboratories remains consistent, while microarray has become the preferred follow-up testing method over traditional karyotyping following a normal RAD result. Despite a universal healthcare system, disparities in prenatal and perinatal cytogenetic testing algorithms are apparent.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".