MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312154374 · doi:10.1177/10935266221144083

Patterns of Interferon γ Expression and C4d Deposition in Chronic Intervillositis of Unknown Etiology

2022· article· en· W4312154374 on OpenAlexaff
Jefferson Terry

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric and Developmental Pathology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicReproductive System and Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtiologyImmunohistochemistryPathogenesisSyncytiotrophoblastPregnancyPlacentaPathologyBiologyDeposition (geology)AndrologyMedicineImmunologyFetusGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pathogenesis of chronic intervillositis of unknown etiology (CIUE) may involve IFNγ overexpression. This study assesses the extent of IFNγ expression in CIUE by immunohistochemistry and compares it to spontaneous pregnancy losses. C4d deposition is also assessed to see whether IFNγ and C4d might represent separate diagnostic categories. Placenta from first to early second trimester with high grade CIUE (CHG; 17 cases) and low grade CIUE (CLG; 12 cases) is compared to euploid (SPLN; 18 cases), aneuploid spontaneous pregnancy losses (SPLA, 17 cases), normal placenta (NP, 13 cases). Protein level expression of IFNγ and C4d is assessed on whole tissue sections by immunohistochemistry. 35% of CHG and 42% of CLG show some level of IFNγ expression localized to the luminal surface of syncytiotrophoblast. 12% of SPLA and no SPLN or NP cases are IFNγ positive. C4d deposition is seen in 100% of CIUE, 88% of SPLA, 83% of SPLN, and 46% of NP samples. IFNγ overexpression occurs in approximately 40% of CIUE-related pregnancy losses. IFNγ expression restricted to a subgroup of CIUE implies that IFNγ may define a distinct disease process. The non-discriminatory pattern of C4d deposition suggests it is a non-specific phenomenon possibly related to placental damage.

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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric and Developmental PathologySame topicReproductive System and PregnancyFrench-language works237,207