MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031567996 · doi:10.1159/000130843

A cytogenetic survey of 14,069 newborn infants

2008· article· en· W2031567996 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Evans, N. Canning, A.G.W. Hunter, John T. Martsolf, M. Ray, Diane Thompson, J.L. Hamerton

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetics and Cell Genetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of WinnipegChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromosomal translocationRobertsonian translocationBiologyKaryotypeGeneticsChromosomeHeterozygote advantageGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of the chromosomes of 14,069 consecutive liveborn infants revealed 11 infants with balanced reciprocal and 13 with balanced Robertsonian translocations. A detailed physical assessment revealed no increase in major or minor malformations over control infants except for an increase in frequency of upslanting palpebral fissures and some possible minor dermatoglyphic changes. A preliminary psychologic assessment of six heterozygotes and 11 controls at 6 years of age revealed no detectable differences. The results of detailed family studies revealed only one child with an unbalanced karyotype, suggesting that where families are ascertained at random through balanced translocation heterozygotes, the frequency of children with unbalanced karyotypes is low in both the t(DqDq) and reciprocal translocation families. Fetal wastage was shown to be slightly increased in reciprocal but not in Robertsonian translocation families. In both the reciprocal and Robertsonian translocation families the segregation ratio for the translocation was not significantly different from 1:1. A significant excess of males was found among reciprocal but not among Robertsonian translocation heterozygotes. A study of the chromosomes involved in 60 reciprocal translocations ascertained at random by conventional staining in the present and two other series suggested that chromosome 11 and perhaps 13 were involved significantly more frequently than might have been expected by chance. However, with the possible exception of band ll(ql3), no “hot” spots for chromosome breakage were observed in these series. Breaks were, however, found to occur significantly more frequently in pale fluorescent, light-staining than in bright fluorescent, dark-staining bands. The importance of these findings in genetic counselling is discussed.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations65
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetics and Cell GeneticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207