MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159272398 · doi:10.1002/pd.4387

Evaluation of the impact of density gradient centrifugation on fetal cell loss during enrichment from maternal peripheral blood

2014· article· en· W2159272398 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Emad, Régen Drouin

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCentrifugationDifferential centrifugationFetusDensity gradientPeripheral bloodAndrologyBlood lossBiologyMedicinePregnancyChemistryChromatographyImmunologySurgeryMolecular biologyGeneticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Physical separation by density gradient centrifugation (DGC) is usually used as an initial step of multistep enrichment protocols for purification of fetal cells (FCs) from maternal blood. Many protocols were designed but no single approach was efficient enough to provide noninvasive prenatal diagnosis. Procedures and methods were difficult to compare because of the nonuniformity of protocols among different groups. Recovery of FCs is jeopardized by their loss during the process of enrichment. Any loss of FCs must be minimized because of the multiplicative effect of each step of the enrichment process. The main objective of this study was to evaluate FC loss caused by DGC. METHODS: Fetal cells were quantified in peripheral blood samples obtained from both euploid and aneuploid pregnancies before and after enrichment by buoyant DGC using Histopaque 1.119 g/mL. RESULTS: Density gradient centrifugation results in major loss of 60% to 80% of rare FCs, which may further complicate subsequent enrichment procedures. Eliminating aggressive manipulations can significantly minimize FC loss. CONCLUSION: Data obtained raise questions about the appropriateness of the DGC step for the enrichment of rare FCs and argues for the use of the alternative nonaggressive version of the procedure presented here or prioritizing other methods of enrichments.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrenatal DiagnosisSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207