Complex reciprocal translocations, more complex than initially thought: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present a case of a couple who experienced spontaneous abortion after the transfer of a preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangement (PGT-SR) normal/balanced embryo. The embryo was later determined to have significant paternally inherited chromosome deletion that was not previously identified as part of a complex translocation. DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: Single infertility practice. PATIENTS: A 35-year-old patient with a history of five spontaneous abortions and her 36-years-old partner, a carrier of a balanced reciprocal translocation. INTERVENTIONS: In vitro fertilization with PGT-SR and follow-up genetic testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Identification of a paternal reciprocal translocation, pregnancy outcome after PGT-SR, and follow-up genetic testing after the spontaneous abortion of a PGT-SR normal/balanced embryo. RESULTS: Karyotyping for a couple with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss identified a paternal reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 5 and 17 after G-banding analysis. In vitro fertilization with PGT-SR resulted in one normal/balanced embryo. The couple experienced a 9-week spontaneous abortion of the transfer of the embryo. Testing of product of conception identified a 3.2-Mb deletion on chromosome 17 resulting in the loss of 55 known genes and deemed likely pathogenic. Repeat karyotyping using G-banding and metaphase fluorescence in situ hybridization identified an additional chromosomal translocation, a segment of chromosome 17 translocated to chromosome 6, the same segment of deoxyribonucleic acid absent from the fetus. CONCLUSIONS: Preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangement cases are complex. Genetic testing must be completed with the best available technology by a reliable testing center. We, therefore, recommend that all chromosomal translocations detected by G-banding be further investigated with metaphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. When unexpected results occur in this patient population, testing beyond the standard of care may be required, including advanced molecular testing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".