MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Compensatory mechanisms in the satellite association patterns of individuals with Robertsonian translocations

2009· article· en· W2020196782 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueHereditas · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and Retrovirus Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
FundersCancerfondenMedical Research CouncilSundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd
KeywordsChromosomal translocationBiologyGeneticsAssociation (psychology)SatelliteChromosomeKaryotypeMechanism (biology)Evolutionary biologyGenetic associationGeneGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The satellite association pattern was studied in 12 individuals from families with D/D, D/G and G/G translocations. The analyses comprised 50 cells from each individual. The intact homologues of chromosomes involved in the translocations had a higher tendency to satellite association than the other chromosomes of the same group (D or G). The chromosome types, not involved in the translocations, showed wide variation in their association tendency, no association pattern common to all of them being found. The intact homologues of the chromosomes involved in the translocations associate more frequently with each other than with other chromosomes. This tendency might be due not only to the high association tendency of the chromosomes involved but also to a specific preference of these chromosomes to associate with each other. These results suggest that a gene-dose-mechanism underlies the phenomenon of satellite association, and thus in fact gives functional aspect to this phenomenon.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHereditasSame topicT-cell and Retrovirus StudiesFrench-language works237,207