MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552379766 · doi:10.1002/0471143030.cb2206s25

Comparative Genomic Hybridization

2004· review· en· W1552379766 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Cell Biology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationMetaphaseIn situ hybridizationMolecular biologyChromosomeBiologyFluorescence in situ hybridizationDNAFish <Actinopterygii>genomic DNAHybridization probeDNA extractionGeneticsPolymerase chain reactionGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is a screening method based on fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). In contrast to conventional FISH, the metaphase target is derived from a normal peripheral blood lymphocyte culture. This target is hybridized to the test or tumor DNA, which is labeled/detected by one fluorochrome (i.e., green), and to an equal amount of labeled normal or reference DNA, which is labeled/detected by a different fluorochrome (red). It is the difference in these green/red ratios (determined by specialized software) along the length of each karyotyped chromosome that indicates the relative copy number changes in the test/tumor DNA. The basic FISH techniques reviewed in this section, the parameters for which also apply to obtaining satisfactory results for CGH, include cytogenetic preparation and slide-making, DNA extraction (from fresh or paraffin-embedded tissues) and labeling, slide pretreatment, hybridization, post-hybridization washes, and detection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.312 · 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