Apparent transmission distortion of a pericentric chromosome one inversion in a large multi‐generation pedigree
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pericentric chromosome inversions are often associated with infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, and an increased risk for offspring with congenital anomalies. We report on a chromosome 1 inversion between 1p36.21 and 1q42.13, one of the largest described familial pericentric inversions of chromosome 1. The inversion was ascertained following the birth of a female with multiple congenital anomalies due to a recombinant chromosome 1. The inversion was subsequently detected or inferred in 16 healthy individuals over five generations. Interestingly, with a ratio of 16 carriers to 6 noncarriers, there appears to be transmission distortion of the inverted chromosome 1 within the family. Although there is no reported difficulty conceiving in the family, the risk of miscarriage is higher than predicted at 34% (13/38). The recurrence risk of a recombinant chromosome also appears to be lower than expected based on the mode of ascertainment. This case contributes to the spectrum of clinical features of chromosome 1 recombinants and raises the question of whether or not there is a selective advantage of the inverted chromosome at meiosis, conception, or post-zygotically that has contributed to transmission distortion of the inverted chromosome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".