MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022052113 · doi:10.1159/000130147

Comparison of chromosomal behavior in cultured lymphocytes and fibroblasts from patients with chromosomal disorders and controls

2008· article· en· W2022052113 on OpenAlexaff
Makoto Higurashi, P.E. Conen

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibroblastBiologyLymphocyteEndoreduplicationMolecular biologyKaryotypeCell cultureImmunologyGeneticsAndrologyChromosomeCellCell cycleMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occurrence of satellite association, breaks, tetraploidy or endoreduplication, and structural rearrangements was studied and compared in 600 lymphocyte and 600 skin-fibroblast metaphases from 30 karyotypically normal individuals and in 820 lymphocyte and 820 skin-fibroblast metaphases from 41 patients with various chromosomal disorders. The frequency of satellite association was less (0.02 < P < 0.05) in fibroblast than lymphocyte cultures of both the control and abnormal groups. The incidence of breaks in the controls was 2.5 % in lymphocytes and 4.2% in cultured fibroblasts. In patients with chromosomal disorders, the incidence was 5.5% in cultured lymphocytes and significantly greater (P < 0.01), 15.2%, in cultured fibroblasts. The incidence of tetraploid cells (including endoreduplication) in lymphocyte cultures was 0.2% of 3000 cells in the controls and 0.3% of 4100 cells in the abnormal group; this was significantly less (P < 0.01) than the incidence in fibroblast cultures, 3.9% of 3000 control cells and 3.7% of 4100 cells in the abnormal group. The excess of breaks and tetraploid cells in cultured fibroblasts compared to cultured lymphocytes may be due to the longer duration in culture, with increased risk of chromosomal damage, of the fibroblast cultures.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogeneticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207