MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400453295 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2024-sdc.68

069 Assessing the impact of non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) on health-related quality of life: a comparative study using patient- reported outcome measures (PROMs) in prenatal screening among pregnant women

2024· article· en· W4400453295 on OpenAlexaff
Meryeme El Balqui, François Rousseau, Sylvie Langlois, Souleymane Gadio, Suélène-Georgina Dofara, Sabrina Guay-Bélanger, Denis Talbot, France Légaré

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversité du QuébecUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrenatal screeningMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Prenatal carePregnancyObstetricsPrenatal diagnosisEnvironmental healthFetusNursingPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The integration of Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening (NIPS) as a universal first-tier screening could provide an earlier screening and if needed, diagnostic result compared to standard screening. While the clinical performance of NIPS is well-documented, little research has documented its impact on pregnant women health-related quality of life (HRQoL) thus hampering informed decision- making about prenatal options. We compared the impact of NIPS on HRQoL to standard care. Methods In a prospective multicentric randomized trial, pregnant women (≥19 years) undergoing foetal chromosomal anomaly screening (T13, T18, T21) were randomized 2:1 to first-tier NIPS or standard care. Randomization considered age and recruitment site. HRQOL was assessed using PROM Physical Health and Mental Health summary scores at 10, 16, and 22 weeks of gestation. Descriptive and multivariate analyses, mainly using a linear mixed model, were performed. Results A total of 7815 pregnant women have been recruited with mean age of 32 years (Standard Deviation=4) and 64.7% of European origin in both groups. At 10, 16, and 22 weeks of gestation, physical Health and Mental Health summary scores were 47.2 to 53.0 (± 6 to 8) in both arms. The mean differences between first-tier NIPS group and standard care group were -0.77 (95% CI 2.06–0.52; P=0.12), for the physical health and 0.8034 (95% CI 0.42–2.02, P=0.10) for the mental health. Discussion Trajectories of physical and mental health scores were similar between groups. No significant differences were detected between the two groups. Conclusions The findings provide evidence that first-tier NIPS as an option for prenatal screening doesn’t worsen the HRQOL over 22 weeks of gestation compared to standard care. This evidence will be informing future decision aids about prenatal screening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→