MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145160468 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmh002

Potential significance of genomic imprinting defects for reproduction and assisted reproductive technology

2004· review· en· W2145160468 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomic imprintingReprogrammingBiologyImprinting (psychology)EpigeneticsGerm cellGeneticsAssisted reproductive technologyEpigenesisDNA methylationInfertilityGenePregnancyGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies suggest a possible link between human assisted reproductive technology and genomic imprinting disorders. Assisted reproductive technology includes the isolation, handling and culture of gametes and early embryos at times when imprinted genes are likely to be particularly vulnerable to external influences. Evidence of sex-specific differences in imprint acquisition suggests that male and female germ cells may be susceptible to perturbations in imprinted genes at specific prenatal and postnatal stages. Imprints acquired first during gametogenesis must be maintained during preimplantation development when reprogramming of the overall genome occurs. In this review, we will discuss both new developments in our understanding of genomic imprinting including the mechanisms and timing of imprint erasure, acquisition and maintenance during germ cell development and early embryogenesis as well as the implications of this research for future epigenetic studies in reproduction and assisted reproductive technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.274 · 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