MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084807130 · doi:10.1159/000094219

Studying meiosis: a review of FISH and M-FISH techniques used in the analysis of meiotic processes in humans

2006· review· en· W2084807130 on OpenAlexaff
M. Oliver‐Bonet, J. Benet, Renée H. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetic and Genome Research · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeiosisBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>GeneticsFluorescence in situ hybridizationChromosomeEvolutionary biologyGeneFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that chromosome in situ hybridization allows the unequivocal identification of targeted human somatic chromosomes. Different fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) techniques have been developed throughout the years and, following the mitotic studies, meiotic analyses have been performed using these different techniques. The introduction of M-FISH techniques to the analysis of meiotic cells has allowed the study of meiotic processes for every individual human chromosome. In this paper, we review the different FISH and M-FISH techniques that have been used on human meiotic cells in both men and women.

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 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetic and Genome ResearchSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207