MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161768996 · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmab010

Maternal germline factors associated with aneuploid pregnancy loss: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3161768996 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ursula Blyth, Laurentiu Craciunas, Gavin Hudson, Meenakshi Choudhary

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Reproduction Update · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRosetrees Trust
KeywordsMiscarriagePregnancyAneuploidyEarly Pregnancy LossObstetricsReproductive medicineMedicineAbortionGynecologyAdvanced maternal ageBiologyGeneticsFetusChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage describes the spontaneous loss of pregnancy before the threshold of viability; the vast majority occur before 12 weeks of gestation. Miscarriage affects one in four couples and is the most common complication of pregnancy. Chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo are identified in ∼50% of first trimester miscarriages; aneuploidy accounts for 86% of these cases. The majority of trisomic miscarriages are of maternal origin with errors occurring during meiotic division of the oocytes. Chromosome segregation errors in oocytes may be sporadic events secondary to advancing maternal age; however, there is increasing evidence to suggest possible maternal germline contributions to this. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective of this review was to appraise critically the existing evidence relating to maternal germline factors associated with pregnancy loss secondary to embryo aneuploidy, identify limitations in the current evidence base and establish areas requiring further research. SEARCH METHODS: The initial literature search was performed in September 2019 and updated in January 2021 using the electronic databases OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. No time or language restrictions were applied to the searches and only primary research was included. Participants were women who had suffered pregnancy loss secondary to numerical chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo. Study identification and subsequent data extraction were performed by two authors independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to judge the quality of the included studies. The results were synthesized narratively. OUTCOMES: The literature search identified 2198 titles once duplicates were removed, of which 21 were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. They reported on maternal germline factors having variable degrees of association with pregnancy loss of aneuploid origin. The Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) gene ontology database was used as a reference to establish the functional role currently attributed to the genes reported. The majority of the cases reported and included were secondary to the inheritance of maternal structural factors such as Robertsonian translocations, deletions and insertions. Germline factors with a plausible role in aneuploid pregnancy loss of maternal origin included skewed X-inactivation and CGG repeats in the fragile X mental retardation (FMR1) gene. Studies that reported the association of single gene mutations with aneuploid pregnancy loss were conflicting. Single gene mutations with an uncertain or no role in aneuploid pregnancy loss included mutations in synaptonemal complex protein 3 (SYCP3), mitotic polo-like kinase 4 (PLK4) and meiotic stromal antigen 3 (STAG3) spindle integrity variants and 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR). WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Identifying maternal genetic factors associated with an increased risk of aneuploidy will expand our understanding of cell division, non-disjunction and miscarriage secondary to embryo aneuploidy. The candidate germline factors identified may be incorporated in a screening panel for women suffering miscarriage of aneuploidy aetiology to facilitate counselling for subsequent pregnancies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Reproduction UpdateSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207