MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantification of all fetal nucleated cells in maternal blood in different cases of aneuploidies

2006· article· en· W1569858178 on OpenAlexaff
Kada Krabchi, Macoura Gadji, J. C. Forest, Régen Drouin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôpital Saint-François d'AssiseUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrisomyFetusAneuploidyNucleated Red Blood CellAndrologyFluorescence in situ hybridizationPrenatal diagnosisBiologyGestational ageGynecologyObstetricsMedicinePregnancyChromosomeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We quantified all fetal nucleated cells (FNCs) per unit volume of maternal blood in different aneuploid pregnancies using molecular cytogenetic techniques. Seven cases of male trisomy 18, two triploidies (69,XXX), two 47,XXX, one 47,XXY, one 47,XYY, one male trisomy 13, and one case of 47,XY,r(22),+r(22) were analyzed. Whole blood samples were obtained from 15 women between 17 and 29 gestational weeks and harvested without using fetal cell enrichment procedures. Fluorescence in situ hybridization and primed in situ labeling were performed to identify the FNCs. All slides were manually scanned to quantify those cells. We have identified 4-20 FNCs/ml of maternal blood in the cases of trisomy 18; 10 and 25 FNCs/ml in the two cases of triploidy; 16 and 14 FNCs/ml, respectively, in the two X trisomies; 19 FNCs/ml in the 47,XXY; 26 FNCs/ml in the 47,XYY; nine FNCs/ml in the trisomy 13; and 10 FNCs/ml in the case of r(22). To detect all FNCs in all aneuploid pregnancies, we have used a very simple method that minimizes the manipulation steps to avoid losing fetal cells. The number of FNCs identified in aneuploid pregnancies was 2-5 times higher than in normal pregnancies. This higher number of FNCs will favor the design of a non-invasive pre-natal test.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207