A LU:−16 individual with antibodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONCLUSIONS: Antibodies against Lutheran blood group antigens have been observed during first-time pregnancy. Samples from a woman of African descent were tested in our immunohematology laboratory on several occasions since 2001. Her samples were phenotyped as Lu(a+b-), and anti-Lub was suspected but not identified. She was asked to make autologous donations in preparation for her delivery, which she did. In 2010, two antibodies were identified: anti-Lea and -Lub. Six years later, a third investigation was requested. This time, an antibody directed at a high-prevalence Lutheran antigen was found in addition to the anti-Lea and -Lub previously observed. Her serum was compatible with three out of five Lu(a-b-) reagent red blood cells (RBCs). One of the incompatible Lu(a-b-) reagent RBCs was known to be In(Lu) (KLF1 mutation). The genetic background of the other reagent RBC was unknown. The LU cDNA sequence analysis revealed the presence of the c.230G>A (Lua), c.679C>T (LU:-16), and a silent polymorphism c.1227G>T. Anti-Lu16 was highly suspected. This would be the fifth case of LU:-16 with antibodies reported, all within women of African heritage with the Lu(a+b-) phenotype. Hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn was not noted in these cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".