MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964620693 · doi:10.1002/bmb.20165

A laboratory exercise to determine human ABO blood type by noninvasive methods

2008· article· en· W1964620693 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael P. Martin, Stephen M. Detzel

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Molecular Biology Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDNA GenotekJohn Carroll University
KeywordsABO blood group systemgenomic DNABiologyGeneticsExonAlleleMolecular biologyAgarose gel electrophoresisSalivaBuccal swabDNAGeneBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and their association with diseases and nondisease phenotypes is of growing importance in human biology studies. In this laboratory exercise, students determine the genetic basis for their ABO blood type; however, no blood is drawn. Students isolate genomic DNA from buccal mucosa cells that are present in saliva and analyze the DNA on an agarose gel. Subsequently, this DNA is used as a PCR template to amplify exons 6 and 7 of the gene that determines the human ABO phenotype. These PCR products are digested and run on agarose gels to examine the restriction fragment length polymorphisms. A deletion in the O(1) allele converts the BstE II site in exon 6 into a Kpn I site, and this feature is used to determine the presence of O(1) alleles. The pattern of exon 7 digest products allows students to distinguish among four other common ABO alleles: A(1) , A(2) , B, and O(2) . This exercise introduces students to commonly used molecular biology techniques, such as genomic DNA isolation, PCR, gel electrophoresis, and restriction digests.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.020

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Molecular Biology EducationSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207