Diagnosing Zygosity in Infant Twins: Physical Similarity, Genotyping, and Chorionicity
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
We compared the results of different methods for diagnosing zygosity in a sample of 237 same-sex pairs of twins assessed at 5 and 18 months of age. Despite the twins' very young age and early stage of development, physical similarity was concordant with genotyping in 91.9% of cases at 5 months and 93.8% of cases at 18 months, for a subsample of 123 and 113 pairs, respectively. This concordance rate was obtained following a case-by-case assessment of each pair's physical similarity using a shortened version of the Zygosity Questionnaire for Young Twins (Goldsmith, 1991). Taking into account the chorionicity data available from the twins' medical files, we were able to classify correctly 96% of the pairs, an accuracy rate comparable to previously reported rates obtained with older twins. Chorionicity data is especially useful since we found that monochorionic MZ twins are more difficult than dichorionic MZ twins to diagnose by physical similarity at these young ages. The relative cost-benefit of methods based on reported physical similarity and DNA analysis is discussed in light of these results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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