MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Segregation of a supernumerary del(15) marker chromosome in sperm

2000· article· en· W2145713424 on OpenAlexaff
PD Cotter, Edmund Ko, SK Larabell, AW Rademaker, R. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsBiologySmall supernumerary marker chromosomeSpermFluorescence in situ hybridizationSupernumeraryChromosomeGeneticsY chromosomeMarker chromosomeChromosome 15X chromosomeSpermatogenesisFish <Actinopterygii>MeiosisAutosomeKaryotypeGeneAnatomyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMC) can be associated with both normal and abnormal phenotypes. In addition, SMC are found at higher frequency in males with infertility. We identified a SMC, characterized as a del(15)(q11.2) chromosome, in a phenotypically normal male. Using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), we examined the segregation of the del(15) chromosome in sperm from this patient. Only 6.23% of sperm nuclei showed disomy using a chromosome 15 alpha-satellite FISH probe, instead of the expected 50%. In addition, FISH analysis showed no increase for non-disjunction of chromosome 18, excluding an interchromosomal effect for this chromosome. The significant decrease in sperm bearing the del(15) may be due to tissue-specific mosaicism or a result of some form of selection against the del(15) during spermatogenesis. This finding provides a basis for the observation that SMC(15) are less likely to be inherited from a paternal carrier.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207