MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021456997 · doi:10.3109/19396368.2014.962710

PGD for a carrier of an intrachromosomal insertion using aCGH

2014· review· en· W2021456997 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Jones, Elena Kolomietz, Georges Maire, M. Vlasschaert, Ann M. Joseph‐George, Diane Myles‐Reid, Karen Chong, David Chitayat, Rebecca Arthur

Bibliographic record

VenueSystems Biology in Reproductive Medicine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationPreimplantation genetic diagnosisBiologyAneuploidyEmbryoBlastocystIn vitro fertilisationBiopsyGeneticsEmbryo transferChromosomeAndrologyGeneEmbryogenesisPathologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrachromosomal insertions are rare and difficult to diagnose. However, making the correct diagnosis is critical for genetic risk assessment, and prenatal and preimplantation genetic diagnosis outcomes. We present a case of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) following trophectoderm biopsy of embryos created after in vitro fertilization for a carrier of an intrachromosomal insertion on chromosome 1 [46,XX, ins(1)(q44q23q32.1)]. The PGD analysis of 6 blastocysts demonstrated 67% unbalanced embryos. No pregnancy was achieved after the transfer of 2 euploid embryos. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of PGD using aCGH following trophectoderm biopsy for a carrier of an intrachromosomal insertion.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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