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

Genetics of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

2006· review· en· W1987867024 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
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