Predictive blood group genetics in hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn: a 10‐year review of a laboratory evaluation of amniotic fluid‐derived DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the types of requests, the patterns of testing, and the error rates associated with the genetic identification of fetuses at risk for immune-mediated hemolytic disease. METHOD: Retrospective review of the laboratory information system for all fetal blood group genotyping tests performed at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada from January 1997 to December 2006. RESULTS: Amniotic fluid-derived DNA, from 220 women (243 pregnancies), was tested for one or more antigens (279 tests) when the father was heterozygous for the inferred blood group antigen or was unavailable. The PCR amplification failure rate of amniotic fluid-derived DNA was 5.0%. When the father was considered hemizygous for RHD or was not available, the fetus was positive in 68.6% and 72.7% of cases, respectively. Two amniotic fluid-derived DNA KEL1 SSP-PCR results did not correlate with the result determined from cultured amniocyte DNA. CONCLUSIONS: Paternal RHD hemizygosity may be overestimated. Thus, we recommend that RHD zygosity be established by molecular analysis of the RHD breakpoint. Cultured amniocytes should be reserved for testing if the amniotic fluid-derived DNA is inconclusive due to PCR amplification failure. We use PCR-RFLP genotyping methods for RHCE*E/RHCE*e (Rh E/e), KEL1/KEL2 (K/k), FYA/FYB (Fy(a/b)), and JKA/JKB (Jk(a/b)).
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".