From Products to Product Lines Using Model Matching and Refactoring.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the diagnosis of CML and for monitoring of treatment response the detection of the t(9;22)(q34;q11) or the BCR-ABL rearrangement is necessary. Chromosome banding analysis (CA) is still the gold standard but other techniques like Southern blot, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) are available. We analyzed 350 CML patients at different stages of disease in parallel with CA, interphase-FISH (IP-FISH), hypermetaphase-FISH (HM-FISH) and RT-PCR. In 20 cases with no Ph(+) metaphases in CA, HM-FISH detected 0.2 to 10% BCR-ABL(+)metaphases. After IP-FISH 107 samples were judged as negative. However, in 17 of these samples HM-FISH detected BCR-ABL(+) metaphases (0.3-11%), and in eight cases CA detected Ph(+) metaphases (2.5-25%). A comparison of IP-FISH performed on uncultivated cells vs cells cultivated for 48 h in 70 cases revealed a higher proportion of BCR-ABL+ cells in the cultivated samples. If nested PCR was negative, all other methods were negative in all cases too. In addition, 94 cases were evaluated using real-time PCR (LightCycler technology). The BCR-ABL/cABL ratio measured showed a high correlation with all other methods. Interestingly, a wide range in the BCR-ABL/ABL ratio was observed especially in patients who showed 100% Ph-positive metaphases in CA. In conclusion, CA, IP-FISH, HM-FISH and real-time PCR give reliable results but differences due to measurement of different target structures have to be kept in mind when using these data for definition of remission status.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it