Comparative genomic hybridization: A new approach to screening for intrauterine complete or mosaic aneuploidy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the practice of clinical genetics chromosomal aneuploidy in both mosaic and nonmosaic forms has long been recognized as a cause of abnormal prenatal and postnatal development. Traditionally, cytogenetic analysis of cultured lymphocytes has been used as a standard test for detection of constitutional aneuploidies. As lymphocytes represent only one lineage, chromosomal mosaicism expressed in other tissues often remains undetected. The purpose of this study was to assess the utilization of molecular cytogenetic analysis for detection of chromosomal aneuploidy in placental tissues. Using placentas from 100 pregnancies with viable nonmalformed livebirths, both trophoblast and chorionic stroma were analyzed using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). In all cases with an indication of chromosomal imbalance by CGH, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis was performed to confirm the presence of aneuploidy. To differentiate between constitutional aneuploidy and confined placental mosaicism (CPM), amniotic membrane was analyzed by CGH and FISH techniques. Our results demonstrated five placentas with CPM for chromosomes 2, 4, 12, 13, and 18, respectively, and two constitutional nonmosaic aneuploidies (47,XXX and 47,XXY). Molecular cytogenetic studies of human placental tissues enables easy analysis of both embryonic (amnion) and extraembryonic (chorion) cell lineages. Detection at birth of chromosomal defects affecting intrauterine placental and fetal development is important because these chromosomal defects may continue to have an influence on postnatal development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".