MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An overview of the Progenika ID CORE XT: an automated genotyping platform based on a fluidic microarray system

2015· article· en· W2413424359 on OpenAlexaff
Mindy Goldman, Núria Nogués, Lilian Castilho

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunohematology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypingMicroarrayCore (optical fiber)Computational biologyFluidicsComputer scienceEmbedded systemEngineeringBiologyGeneticsGenotypeGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated testing platforms facilitate the introduction of red cell genotyping of patients and blood donors. Fluidic microarray systems, such as Luminex XMAP (Austin, TX), are used in many clinical applications, including HLA and HPA typing. The Progenika ID CORE XT (Progenika Biopharma-Grifols, Bizkaia, Spain) uses this platform to analyze 29 polymorphisms determining 37 antigens in 10 blood group systems. Once DNA has been extracted, processing time is approximately 4 hours. The system is highly automated and includes integrated analysis software that produces a file and a report with genotype and predicted phenotype 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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunohematologySame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207