A unique case of cervical carcinoma. Comparison of chromosome analysis and flow cytometric measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cervical carcinoma was studied by chromosomal analysis and flow cytometric DNA measurements. Chromosome numbers were determined in 548 metaphases. About 73 % of the metaphases had chromosome numbers in the diploid range and about 22 % had chromosome numbers in the hypotriploid range. Only a few (2.2 %) metaphases were found in the tetraploid/pentaploid range, and about the same number of metaphases had chromosome counts below 38 (3.1 %). 92 metaphases were karyotyped and clonal relationships were determined. Except for a diploid karyotypically normal clone each clone was characterized by the presence of specific marker(s). Flow cytometric analysis of the DNA distribution showed corresponding cell populations with 2C and the 3C content, but a considerable fraction of the cells were measured in the 4C range. The differences between the two sets of data in quantitation of clones reflect that only some properties of a multiclonal proliferating cell population can be analysed with each of the two methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".