MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987867024 · doi:10.1055/s-2006-931797

Genetics of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

2006· review· en· W1987867024 on OpenAlexaff
Sony Sierra, Mary D. Stephenson

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Reproductive Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecurrent miscarriageMiscarriageGenetic counselingPregnancyEarly Pregnancy LossChromosomeBiologyPreimplantation genetic diagnosisGeneticsAbortionGynecologyObstetricsMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a devastating reproductive problem affecting approximately 5% of couples trying to conceive. Genetic factors appear to be highly associated with reproductive loss. In this article, genetic factors are reviewed in terms of random numerical chromosome errors in miscarriage specimens and carriers of structural chromosome rearrangements that may result in unbalanced chromosome errors in pregnancies. Recently, research has generated interest in genetic markers for recurrent loss such as skewed X-chromosome inactivation and human leukocyte antigen-G polymorphisms. Assisted reproductive technologies (specifically, preimplantation genetic diagnosis) have been offered to couples with recurrent pregnancy loss; however, more data need to be evaluated before routine use can be advocated. Management of genetic factors in RPL should include therapy based on the highest level of evidence, genetic counseling, and close monitoring of subsequent pregnancies.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations148
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Reproductive MedicineSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207