Origin and outcome of pregnancies affected by androgenetic/biparental chimerism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Androgenetic diploid cells confined to the placenta have recently been reported in several cases of normally developed fetuses in association with placental mesenchymal dysplasia (PMD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We investigated two singleton, mildly growth-restricted, female pregnancies ascertained on the basis of PMD. One case had liver hemangiomas and both infants had multiple skin hemangiomas. Post-natal development was normal. Molecular marker analysis confirmed the diagnosis of androgenetic and normal mixed cell populations in the placenta. Both cases derived from a single maternal genome (M1) and two distinct paternal genomes (P1 and P2). In one case, the androgenetic cell population contained both paternal genomes (P1P2), with one shared in common with the biparental (M1P1) population. In the second case, the androgenetic lineage showed complete homozygosity (P2P2) for a paternal genome not common to the biparental cell population. CONCLUSION: These new PMD cases help to define the range of possible clinical presentations of androgenetic/biparental mosaicism or chimerism. Placentas with androgenetic/biparental chimeric cell populations may derive from a single tri-pronuclear (3PN) zygote in which one or more parental genomes are not equally apportioned to the daughter cells in the first cell division.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".