MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077049491 · doi:10.1097/pgp.0b013e3182630d8c

Characterization of Androgenetic/Biparental Mosaic/Chimeric Conceptions, Including Those With a Molar Component

2013· article· en· W2077049491 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecological Pathology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Trophoblastic Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCytotrophoblastChorionic villiFluorescence in situ hybridizationPartial Hydatidiform MolePathologyHyperplasiaImmunohistochemistryGenotypingMicrodissectionProducts of conceptionPloidyGeneticsPlacentaPregnancyGenotypeMedicineImmunologyFetusChromosomeGeneEndocrinologyAbortion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have demonstrated the value of ancillary techniques, including p57 immunohistochemistry and short tandem repeat genotyping, for distinguishing hydatidiform moles (HM) from nonmolar specimens and for subtyping HMs as complete hydatidiform moles (CHM) and partial hydatidiform moles (PHM). With rare exceptions, CHMs are p57-negative and androgenetic diploid; partial hydatidiform moles are p57-positive and diandric triploid; and nonmolar specimens are p57-positive and biparental diploid. Androgenetic/biparental mosaic/chimeric conceptions can have morphologic features that overlap with HMs but are genetically distinct. This study characterizes 11 androgenetic/biparental mosaic/chimeric conceptions identified in a series of 473 products of conception specimens subjected to p57 immunohistochemistry and short tandem repeat genotyping. Fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed on 10 to assess ploidy. All cases were characterized by hydropically enlarged, variably sized and shaped villi. In 5 cases, the villi lacked trophoblastic hyperplasia, whereas in 6 there was a focal to extensive villous component with trophoblastic hyperplasia and features of CHM. The villi lacking trophoblastic hyperplasia were characterized by discordant p57 expression within individual villi (p57-positive cytotrophoblast and p57-negative stromal cells), whereas the villous components having trophoblastic hyperplasia were uniformly p57-negative in both cell types. Short tandem repeat genotyping of at least 2 villous areas in each case demonstrated an excess of paternal alleles in all regions, with variable paternal:maternal allele ratios (usually >2:1); pure androgenetic diploidy was identified in those cases with a sufficiently sized villous component having trophoblastic hyperplasia and features of CHM. Fluorescence in situ hybridization demonstrated uniform diploidy in 7 cases, including 4 of 5 tested cases with trophoblastic hyperplasia and 3 of 5 cases without trophoblastic hyperplasia. Two cases without trophoblastic hyperplasia had uniformly diploid villous stromal cells but 1 had triploid and 1 had tetraploid cytotrophoblast; 1 case with trophoblastic hyperplasia had uniformly diploid villous stromal cells but a mixture of diploid, triploid, and tetraploid cytotrophoblast. In 3 cases with a CHM component, persistent gestational trophoblastic disease developed. These results indicate that androgenetic/biparental mosaic/chimeric conceptions are most often an admixture of androgenetic diploid (p57-negative) and biparental diploid (p57-positive) cell lines but some have localized hyperdiploid components. Recognition of their distinctive p57 expression patterns and genotyping results can prevent misclassification as typical CHMs, PHMs, or nonmolar specimens. The presence of androgenetic cell lines, particularly in those with a purely androgenetic CHM component, warrants follow-up because of some risk of persistent gestational trophoblastic disease.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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