The Implications of a False Positive Second-Trimester Serum Screen for Down Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief OBJECTIVE To investigate the genetic and obstetric implications of false positive Down syndrome serum screening results. METHODS The study population comprised 162,774 women underwent triple marker screening in the Ontario Maternal Serum Screening program between October 1995 and September 1998, with outcomes obtained from the Canadian Institute of Health Information. The study compares the incidence of chromosomal abnormalities other than Down syndrome in screen positive women with background incidence from the literature. It also compares the risks of having a fetus with congenital abnormalities or of developing obstetric complications in 11,549 screen positive women with their matched controls. RESULTS A higher incidence of trisomy 13 (12.4 per 10,000) was seen in screen positive women; the incidence of other chromosomal abnormalities in screen positive women was not increased relative to the general population. The higher incidence of trisomy 13 may have been biased by the selective uptake of amniocentesis in women who had high risks for Down syndrome or abnormal ultrasound findings. Incidences of fetal congenital abnormality in screen positive and negative women were similar. Women who screened positive for Down syndrome had increased risk of spontaneous fetal loss (odds ratio 1.80; 95% confidence interval 1.54, 2.07) but no other obstetric complications. CONCLUSION Among women who screened positive for Down syndrome, we found a higher number of spontaneous fetal losses and a possibly higher risk of having a fetus with trisomy 13. We did not find an increased risk for other chromosomal abnormalities, congenital abnormalities, or other adverse obstetric outcomes. Screening positive for Down syndrome indicated a possible higherrisk for trisomy 13 and a higher risk for spontaneous fetal loss but not other adverse outcomes.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".