Morphological and cytogenetic analysis of human giant oocytes and giant embryos
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Giant binuclear oocytes occur with considerable frequency in human ovaries, but their ultimate fate remains unknown. We report the morphology, cytogenetics and developmental potential of human giant oocytes from patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 44 giant oocytes was collected from patients aged 22-44 years old, with an overall frequency of 0.3% (44/14 272 oocytes). Giant oocytes were approximately 30% larger in diameter than normal oocytes (mean 200.4 versus 154.7 micro m, P = 0.0001). Two different morphological patterns were observed among giant unfertilized and fertilized oocytes. All unfertilized oocytes appeared to be diploid and contained either one or two metaphase plates (46 or 2 x 23 chromosomes), and one or two polar bodies respectively. Consequently, fertilized giant oocytes exhibited either two or three pronuclei, or two or four polar bodies. Both types of giant zygotes were capable of normal cleavage and development to blastocyst stage. Four giant embryos were analysed by interphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization using probes for chromosomes 9, 22, X and Y, and all appeared chromosomally abnormal with numerical alterations indicative of ploidy change. CONCLUSIONS: Giant oocytes might be a possible source of human digynic triploidy. To avoid undesired miscarriages, giant embryos originated from either two- or three-pronuclear giant zygotes should be excluded from uterine transfers.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it