Analysis of sperm chromosome complements from a man heterozygous for a pericentric inversion, inv(8)(p23q22)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human sperm chromosomes were studied in a man heterozygous for a pericentric inversion (p23q22) of chromosome 8. The pronuclear chromosomes were analyzed after in vitro penetration of golden hamster eggs. A total of 166 sperm were examined; 88.6% were chromosomally balanced and 11.4% were recombinant. Of the balanced complements, the proportion with a normal chromosome 8 (53.6%) was approximately equal to the proportion with an inverted 8 (46.4%). Of the recombinant complements, the proportion of sperm with a duplication of 8q and a deletion of 8p (5.7%) was equal to the reciprocal event of a duplication of 8p and a deletion of 8q (5.7%). The frequencies of X-bearing (53.2%) and Y-bearing sperm (46.8%) were not significantly different from the expected 1:1 ratio. There was no evidence for an interchromosomal effect. A total of four pericentric inversions have been studied by human sperm chromosome analysis; recombinant chromosomes have been observed in two of the four cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".