MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908098890 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5080351

Implementing Publicly Funded Noninvasive Prenatal Testing for Fetal Aneuploidy in Ontario, Canada: Clinician Experiences With a Disruptive Technology

2020· other· en· W6908098890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralWorkloadPrenatal careDisruptive technologyUnintended consequencesHealth carePublic healtheHealthHealth technology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last decade has experienced unprecedented uptake of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), creating significant changes in the way prenatal clinicians provide services. Through the lens of social shaping of technology, we examine the effects of the introduction of this technology on the health care system in Ontario, Canada. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted a cross-sectional study investigating clinicians’ perspectives of NIPT in 2014, 2016, and 2018. Through in-depth interviews (n = 37), we explored their perspectives on the impact of NIPT on their referral practices, workload, coordination of testing modalities, education and counseling, and elicited their views on recent expansions of the test. Findings suggest that the introduction of NIPT has created unintended consequences with respect to clinician workload and wellness, clinician education, equity of access, and public system resources. Responsiveness from decision makers is key to ensuring the responsible use of NIPT in the health care system.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207