MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085710584 · doi:10.1172/jci34470

A skewed view of X chromosome inactivation

2007· letter· en· W2085710584 on OpenAlex
Jakub Minks, Wendy P. Robinson, Carolyn J. Brown

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

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsX-inactivationX chromosomeSkewed X-inactivationGeneticsBiologySomatic cellXISTChromosomeLocus (genetics)Dosage compensationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

X chromosome inactivation involves a random choice to silence either X chromosome early in mammalian female development. Once silenced the inactive X is stably inherited through subsequent somatic cell divisions, and thus, females are generally mosaics, having a mixture of cells with one or the other parental X active. While in most females the number of cells with either X being active is roughly equal, skewing of X chromosome inactivation is observed in a percentage of women. In this issue of the JCI, Bolduc and colleagues address whether skewing of X chromosome inactivation in humans is influenced by an X-linked locus that can alter this initial random inactivation (see the related article beginning on page 333). Their data indicate that most of the skewing observed in humans results from secondary events rather than being due to an inherited tendency to inactivate a particular X 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.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.297 · 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