here's to being average

[smileswhf]

Yesterday I had my 16 week appointment with the doctor. That was easy and went well. I think many of us weirdos spend most of our lives in the outlier section of the bell curve. We very often just don't quite fit the mold. You learn to define yourself by that. Celebrate your differences and all that. Now, I am smack dab in the middle of normal. I have been reading the Mayo Clinic book on pregnancy and in every way except my age I am smack dab in the middle of normal. I have almost every discomfort that the book mentions in a completely normal and predictable amount and time frame. My heart rate is normal. My size is normal. My weight gain is normal. My doctor and I are both really hoping it stays that way going forward.

This visit I got my quad test done. It's a blood test to help screen for down's syndrome and spina bifida. It will be a few days before I have results. The results for this test actually come back as odds: if you have greater than a 1/380 risk, you are considered "positive" and more invasive testing is suggested. The thing about it is that your age is factored into the algorithm but no one tells you what the algorithm is or how heavily age is weighted. This has inspired 2 days of ranting by my physicist spouse about how doctors aren't required to take real physics (with calculus) and that they don't understand bayesian statistics. Personally, I'm a bit jaded. I will not be at all surprised if my odds come back as greater than 1/380 based on my age alone. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Comments

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

If you do come back with a higher than you're willing to risk chance, there's several tests that can be done now that don't increase the miscarriage risk like amniocentesis.

[smileswhf.livejournal.com]

You'll have to tell me which tests you're thinking of. As far as I know, the only tests available after this are amnio or chorionic villus sampling, neither of which is without risks. But you shouldn't worry. I'm not worried. And I do really like listening to my spouse rant about the lack of scientific rigor in medical testing.

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11095 Article title is Non-invasive Down's syndrome test shows promise

I'm not worried. :-) But I like being informed.

My spouse, unixronin, would rather rail against the scientific rigor in medical testing, mainly because he wants the guys down at Tulane to give him the "magic" powder. Article here from SciAm. (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=regrowing-human-limbs)

[nilasae.livejournal.com]

Interesting - triple test and nuchal translucency are done in one session around here and are called "combined test". Which works when being pregnant with one child but not with twins... heh.
(Yes, there's a reason I'm "informed" like that - ping me via IM if you feel like it *grin*)
What pisses me off is that all those values don't give you an absolute result but only probabilities and that there's enough ObGyns that scare you with those. I heard about quite a few women with a higher chance who had perfectly normal babies (which doesn't mean those tests don't have any relevance, mind).