Should we screen for globin gene mutations in blood samples with mean corpuscular volume (MCV) greater than 80 fL in areas with a high prevalence of thalassaemia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate whether it is worthwhile, in areas where thalassaemia is common, to screen for globin gene mutations in subjects with a mean corpuscular volume (MCV) above 80 fL, especially in partners of known thalassaemia carriers. METHODS: Blood samples from 95 subjects with MCV between 80 and 85 fL were screened for the presence of alpha globin gene mutations and the haemoglobin (Hb) E mutation. RESULTS: Thirty four subjects harboured globin gene mutations. Of these, 31 had deletions of one alpha globin gene, one had Hb Constant Spring, and three had Hb E mutations. CONCLUSION: Based on the above figures and known prevalence rates of thalassaemia carriers, it would seem worthwhile to screen for globin gene mutations in partners of known thalassaemia carriers, regardless of MCV, to identify pregnancies at risk of Hb H disease or Hb E/beta thalassaemia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".