MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A LU:−16 individual with antibodies

2017· article· en· W3024072615 on OpenAlexaff
Carole Éthier, C. Parent, Anne‐Sophie Lemay, N. Baillargeon, Geneviève Laflamme, Josée N. Lavoie, Josée Perreault, M. St‐Louis

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunohematology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsHéma-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibodyComputational biologyBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunohematologySame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207