MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983131905 · doi:10.1159/000097660

Von Willebrand Factor Short Sequence Repeat Locus 2 (Intron 40) Consists of Three Polymorphic Subloci

2006· article· en· W1983131905 on OpenAlexaff
Maha Othman, Hisham S. Elbatarny, Christopher D. Byrne, Denise O’Shaughnessy

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Haematologica · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus (genetics)GeneticsBiologyAlleleIntronGeneMicrosatellitePolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, identification of alleles within the short sequence repeat locus (SSR locus) of intron 40 of the von Willebrand factor gene (previously known as VNTR II) is based on the size of PCR products that only predicts a certain number of repeats. Through cloning and sequencing, we demonstrated the complexity of nucleotide sequence structure of this region by describing three polymorphic tetranucleotide repeat subloci SSR 'a', SSR 'b' and SSR 'c' within the same originally described locus: the original TCTA (9-14 repeats), a small TCTA repeat locus (2 or 3 repeats) located at the 5' end and 30 nucleotides upstream from the original locus and a TGTA repeat locus (5 or 6 repeats), adjacent to the 2/3 repeat locus. Sequencing of 54 VWF alleles has revealed 14 different sequence combinations in this region while the size variability in the region only amounts to a 7-allele system. While the determination of VNTR alleles by PCR remains a practical methodology in linkage analysis, this may not be applicable in forensic medicine since not all alleles of identical length based on PCR are the same. Our study reveals the important implication of the identification of SSR 2 subloci and concludes that at least in some situations, there may be a necessity to take into consideration these polymorphic subloci.

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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa HaematologicaSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207