Role of amniotic fluid interphase fluorescence <i>in situ</i> hybridization (FISH) analysis in patient management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We retrospectively reviewed 309 amniotic fluid interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analyses performed from October 1995 to June 1999 to assess the role of interphase FISH in the management of patients at increased risk for fetal aneuploidies. Gestational age and indications for amniocentesis, clinical interventions after FISH results, as well as interventions after final culture reports were analyzed. There were 244 (79%) normal, 50 (16%) abnormal and 15 (5%) inconclusive FISH results. There were no false-positive or false-negative results, but there were nine (3%) clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities not detectable by FISH. Of the 50 women with abnormal FISH results, 26 (52%) elected to terminate the pregnancy prior to the availability of the standard chromosome analysis. In two of the fetuses with trisomy 21 no abnormalities were reported by ultrasound examination. Our experience indicates that interphase FISH results played an important role in decision making, especially for pregnancies close to 24 weeks' gestation. Standard karyotype analysis is still required for detection of chromosome abnormalities not detectable by interphase FISH techniques and for clarification of unusual or inconclusive FISH results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".