MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767866227 · doi:10.1530/rep-17-0569

Causes and consequences of chromosome segregation error in preimplantation embryos

2017· review· en· W2767866227 on OpenAlexafffund
Cayetana Vázquez-Diez, Greg FitzHarris

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAneuploidyBiologyEmbryoChromosomeChromosome segregationGeneticsMitosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Errors in chromosome segregation are common during the mitotic divisions of preimplantation development in mammalian embryos, giving rise to so-called 'mosaic' embryos possessing a mixture of euploid and aneuploid cells. Mosaicism is widely considered to be detrimental to embryo quality and is frequently used as criteria to select embryos for transfer in human fertility clinics. However, despite the clear clinical importance, the underlying defects in cell division that result in mosaic aneuploidy remain elusive. In this review, we summarise recent findings from clinical and animal model studies that provide new insights into the fundamental mechanisms of chromosome segregation in the highly unusual cellular environment of early preimplantation development and consider recent clues as to why errors should commonly occur in this setting. We furthermore discuss recent evidence suggesting that mosaicism is not an irrevocable barrier to a healthy pregnancy. Understanding the causes and biological impacts of mosaic aneuploidy will be pivotal in the development and fine-tuning of clinical embryo selection methods.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.409
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations78
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductionSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207