MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085181334 · doi:10.1055/s-2001-15397

Skewed X Inactivation and Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion

2001· review· en· W2085181334 on OpenAlexaff
Wendy P. Robinson, Christy L. Beever, Carolyn J. Brown, Mary D. Stephenson

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Reproductive Medicine · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsX-inactivationAbortionSkewed X-inactivationBiologyX chromosomeGeneticsMutationOocyteEmbryoChromosomePregnancyAndrologyGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies show that women experiencing recurrent spontaneous abortion exhibit nonrandom X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) more often than in controls. This suggests that genetic factors may be important in explaining the losses in this subset of women. Nonetheless there are a number of possible explanations for this finding and the underlying causes may be heterogeneous. One hypothesis commonly cited is that a mutation on the X chromosome results in both preferential inactivation of the mutated X as well as lethality of male embryos inheriting this mutated X. However, this hypothesis does not explain the increase in chromosome abnormalities observed in the karyotyped losses from women with recurrent pregnancy loss and skewed XCI. This finding leads us to suggest that the mechanism involved may be associated with a reduction in number of ovarian follicles, either due to X mutations affecting oocyte atresia or a restriction in precursor pool size during development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Reproductive MedicineSame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207