Secondary Reporting of G6PD Deficiency on Newborn Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2019, the Alberta Newborn Screening Program expanded to include screening for classic galactosemia using a two-tier screening approach. This approach secondarily identifies infants with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. The goals of this study were (i) to evaluate the performance of a two-tier galactosemia screening protocol, (ii) to explore the impact on and acceptability to families of reporting G6PD deficiency as a secondary finding, and (iii) assess the communication and follow-up process for positive G6PD deficiency screening results. The two-tiered galactosemia approach increased the positive predictive value (PPV) for galactosemia from 8% to 79%. An additional 119 positive newborn screen results were reported for G6PD deficiency with a PPV of 92%. The results show that there may be utility in reporting G6PD deficiency results. Most parents who participated in the study reported having some residual worry around the unexpected diagnosis; however, all thought it was helpful to know of their child's diagnosis of G6PD deficiency. Finally, the communication process for reporting G6PD deficiency newborn screen results was determined to result in appropriate follow up of infants.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".