MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313513876 · doi:10.1002/pd.6282

Poster abstracts of the ISPD 26th International Conference on Prenatal Diagnosis and Therapy, Montréal, Canada, 20–22 June 2022

2023· article· en· W4313513876 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de RennesRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenUniversity of TorontoUniversity of South AustraliaUniversiteit LeidenInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonDalhousie UniversityInstitut des maladies génétiques ImagineMcGovern Medical SchoolAarhus UniversitetshospitalBC Children's HospitalUniversité LavalRigshospitaletUniversity of WashingtonOspedale Pediatrico Bambino GesùChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteSchool of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillBroad InstituteAarhus UniversitetNationwide Children's HospitalInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIOhio State UniversityRadboud UniversiteitLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumSeattle Children's Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaUniversità degli Studi di SienaSantenRijksuniversiteit Groningen
KeywordsMedicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To determine the birth outcomes after a prenatal diagnosis of a copy number variant (CNV) on chromosomal microarray (CMA).Methods: This record linkage study included all singleton pregnancies with a CNV reported on a CMA during 2012 to 2018 at the Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Australia.Outcomes were obtained from the mandated State-wide perinatal data collection on all births?Twenty weeks' gestation, were obtained through the Victorian Department of Health.Probabilistic individual record linkage was performed by the Centre for Victorian Data Linkage.Statistical analysis was performed in Stata17 using the Chi 2 test for proportions with p < 0.05 considered significant.Results: Over the 7-year study period, 11,300 amniocenteses or chorionic villus samples were received for chromosome analysis, of which 6945 (61.5%) were analysed by CMA.A pathogenic CNV or a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) was detected in 713 (10.3%) pregnancies.Ultrasound anomaly was the most common indication for diagnostic testing among the CNV cohort.Twenty percent (46/230) of fetuses with a pathogenic CNV and 64% (311/483) with a VUS had a live birth outcome.Overall, there were 16 (2.2%)perinatal deaths in the CNV cohort.There were 177 pregnancies with a pathogenic CNV and 163 with a VUS that did not have a birth recorded, which we mostly attribute to pregnancy loss prior to 20 weeks, and some movement of residence to outside Victoria during pregnancy.Among fetuses with a pathogenic CNV, there was no statistically significant difference in the live birth rate between those with and without an ultrasound anomaly (16.4% vs. 25.6%respectively, p = 0.091).In contrast, among fetuses with a VUS, those with an ultrasound anomaly were less likely to be live born than those without an ultrasound anomaly (57.7% vs. 71.6%,p < 0.01).Sixty-nine percent of pregnancies with a CNV had parental testing.Pregnancies with an inherited pathogenic CNV were more likely to have a live birth outcome than those with a pathogenic CNV not known to be inherited (33.3% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.003).A similar pattern was observed in pregnancies with and without an inherited VUS (live birth rates 69.4% vs. 51.8%respectively, p < 0.0001). Conclusions:One in five fetuses with a prenatal diagnosis of a pathogenic CNV and two out of three fetuses with a VUS had a live birth outcome in our population.The live birth rate was significantly higher in pregnancies without an ultrasound anomaly and those with inherited CNVs.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicCongenital Diaphragmatic Hernia StudiesFrench-language works237,207