International Newborn Screening: Where Are We in Saudi Arabia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Newborn screening (NBS) programs are believed to play an important role in the decrease of infant mortality rates in many countries. This is achieved through offering early detection and treatment of many genetic as well as metabolic disorders prior to the onset of symptoms. Our paper examines NBS across seven diverse nations: Saudi Arabia, the United States, Japan, Singapore, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. This paper discusses the diseases screened for by each country, latest additions, as well as future recommendations, when applicable. Employing a comparative approach, we conducted a comprehensive review of the most recent published literature on NBS programs in each country and subsequently examined their latest implemented NBS guidelines as outlined on their respective official government health sector websites. We then reviewed the economic feasibility of each of these programs and factors that affect implementation and overall benefit. While all six countries employ well-developed programs, variations are observed. Those variations are mainly attributed to disparities in access, resource scarcity, financial availability, as well as ethical and cultural considerations. From a local perspective, we recommend conducting further population-based studies to assess the epidemiological data in relation to the disease burden on the country's economy. Moreover, we recommend updating national and international guidelines to contain a more comprehensive approach on policies, operation, and sustainability to deliver a service through the lens of value-based healthcare.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".