MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091673669 · doi:10.1159/000133285

Sperm chromosome analysis of two men heterozygous for reciprocal translocations: t(1;9)(q22;q31) and t(16;19)(q11.1;q13.3)

2008· article· en· W2091673669 on OpenAlexaff
Renée H. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetics and Cell Genetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromosomal translocationSpermBiologyMeiosisKaryotypeGeneticsChromosomeAndrologyChromosome analysisGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sperm chromosome complements were analysed in two men who were heterozygous carriers of reciprocal translocations. A total of 363 sperm were karyotyped after in vitro penetration of hamster oocytes, including 180 sperm from a male with a t(1;9)(q22;q31) and 183 from a male with a t(16;19)(q11.1;q13.3). All possible 2:2 and 3:1 meiotic segregations were observed for both translocations. The frequencies of alternate, adjacent 1, adjacent 2, and 3:1 segregations were 46%, 38%, 13%, and 4% for the t(1;9) and 40%, 28%, 31%, and 1% for the t(16;19), respectively. Within the alternate segregation group, the number of normal sperm was not significantly different from the number of sperm carrying a balanced form of the translocation for either of the translocations, as expected. There was no evidence for an interchromosomal effect of either translocation, since the frequencies of numerical abnormalities unrelated to the translocation were within the normal range observed in sperm from control donors. The percentage of sperm with an unbalanced form of the translocation was 54% for the t(1;9) and 61% for the t(16;19).

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
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)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetics and Cell GeneticsSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207