Flow cytometric assessment of feto‐maternal hemorrhage; a comparison with Betke–Kleihauer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assessing the number of fetal cells in the maternal circulation quantifies the volume of feto-maternal hemorrhage, enhancing the ability to provide effective prevention of Rhesus (Rh) allommunization and appropriate fetal surveillance in cases of significant feto-maternal hemorrhage. METHODS: Having developed a standard curve with maternal samples spiked with known volumes of fetal red blood cells, we used a flow cytometric method using fluorescent labeled antihemoglobin F to quantitate fetal cells in the maternal circulatory system in two groups of women undergoing chorionic villus sampling (CVS), by either biopsy forceps or cannula aspiration (n = 170 women). We compared these results with the gold standard, the Betke-Kleihauer test. RESULTS: Our results show good correlation between the flow cytometric method and the traditional Betke-Kleihauer method for fetal red cell quantitation (r(2) = 0.99). Fetal red blood cells were identified in 10 women by the Betke-Kleihauer method, and in 26 women by flow cytometry. CVS was not associated with an increase in feto-maternal hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Flow cytometry was both more sensitive and more timely for the quantitation of feto-maternal hemorrhage than was Betke-Kleihauer.
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".