Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reproductive loss carries immeasurable human costs as well as being costly to the health care system. The objectives of this study were to determine the frequency and distribution of cytogenetically abnormal miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage and to compare the results with the general population. METHODS: A total of 420 specimens, including 29 pre-clinical, 237 embryonic and 154 fetal, were successfully karyotyped from 285 couples with recurrent miscarriage. The results were stratified according to maternal age and compared with controls. RESULTS: In all, 225 specimens (54%) were euploid. A total of 195 specimens (46%) were cytogenetically abnormal, of which 131 (66.5%) were trisomic, 37 (19%) were polyploid, 18 (9%) were monosomy X, eight (4%) were unbalanced translocations and one was a combination of trisomy 21 and monosomy X. The frequency of euploid miscarriages was significantly higher in women <36 years of age with recurrent miscarriage compared with controls. The distribution of cytogenetic abnormalities in the recurrent miscarriage group was not significantly different from controls, when stratified by maternal age. CONCLUSIONS: Women <36 years of age with recurrent miscarriage have a higher frequency of euploid miscarriage. When stratified for maternal age, there is no difference in the distribution of cytogenetically abnormal miscarriages in couples with recurrent miscarriage compared with controls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".