MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1748320207 · doi:10.1002/pd.4345

Validation of automatic scanning of microscope slides in recovering rare cellular events: application for detection of fetal cells in maternal blood

2014· article· en· W1748320207 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Emad, Éric F. Bouchard, Josée Lamoureux, Annie Ouellet, Aparajita Dutta, Uli Klingbeil, Régen Drouin

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFetusFluorescence in situ hybridizationPopulationPrenatal diagnosisPathologyMedicineBiomedical engineeringAndrologyBiologyPregnancyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Detection of rare fetal cells (FCs) in the maternal circulation could be used for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis. Considering that FCs in maternal blood are present in extremely low frequency, manual scanning is cumbersome, time-consuming, and unsuitable for clinical applications. As an alternative, we optimized a custom-made classifier for automatic detection of FCs. METHODS: Using MetaSystems' automated platform, we developed a robust detection algorithm and validated its efficiency on retrieval of rare XY cells in a pure population of XX cells. Slides were scanned for presence of predefined XY cells after fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and primed in situ labeling (PRINS). Retrieval of FCs was also performed on samples from maternal blood. RESULTS: The efficiency of detection of rare XY cells was 88% using FISH (117/133) in comparison with 78% (53/68) with PRINS. FC frequencies per 1 mL of maternal blood ranged from 3 to 6 FCs in normal pregnancies versus 13 to 21 FCs in Down syndrome pregnancies. CONCLUSION: Automatic scanning was more efficient and consistent than manual scanning for detection of rare FCs and required considerably less operator time. Automatic scanning using FISH is more sensitive than that using PRINS. The study validates automatic scanning retrieval of FCs from maternal blood.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.303
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207