MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793372187 · doi:10.1002/pd.5230

Morphology of early intrauterine deaths with full trisomy 15

2018· article· en· W2793372187 on OpenAlexaff
Jefferson Terry, Michael Feichtinger, Sandra Grillenberger, Beda Hartmann, Stefan Jirecek

Bibliographic record

VenuePrenatal Diagnosis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrisomyYolk sacAneuploidyCraniofacialEmbryoBiologyPregnancyAnatomyAndrologyMedicineGeneticsChromosomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The morphologic features of embryos with full trisomy 15 are described. METHOD: A total of 1195 pregnancy losses were examined embryoscopically and cytogenetically. RESULTS: Of 1173 successfully karyotyped specimens, full trisomy 15 was diagnosed cytogenetically in 59 cases (5%). All 59 trisomy 15 embryos were diagnosed cytogenetically in the group of 962 embryonic miscarriages (6%). Trisomy 15 was not registered in 171 anembryonic or yolk sac miscarriages, and no case of full trisomy 15 was observed in 62 fetal miscarriages. Fifty-eight embryos with full trisomy 15 showed structural defects on embryoscopic examination. The most common defects were craniofacial anomalies (n = 73), retarded development of the limbs (n = 39), and abnormally short umbilical cords closely attaching the embryo to the chorionic plate (n = 27). Seven embryos were classified as growth disorganized. Limb reduction defects with a prevalence of 5.6/10 000 births, all affecting upper limb development (10 terminal transverse limb reduction defects and 3 embryos with split hand), were registered in 13 (22%) trisomy 15 embryos. CONCLUSION: Limb reduction defects and craniofacial abnormalities are a typical feature of trisomy 15. Gene dosage imbalances related to trisomy 15 might be the main molecular mechanism underlying the developmental defects observed in the present study and require further investigation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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