Dynamics of karyotype evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the evolution of species, the karyotype changes with a timescale of tens to hundreds of thousand years. In the development of cancer, the karyotype often is modified in cancerous cells over the lifetime of an individual. Characterizing these changes and understanding the mechanisms leading to them has been of interest in a broad range of disciplines including evolution, cytogenetics, and cancer genetics. A central issue relates to the relative roles of random vs deterministic mechanisms in shaping the changes. Although it is possible that all changes result from random events followed by selection, many results point to other non-random factors that play a role in karyotype evolution. In cancer, chromosomal instability leads to characteristic changes in the karyotype, in which different individuals with a specific type of cancer display similar changes in karyotype structure over time. Statistical analyses of chromosome lengths in different species indicate that the length distribution of chromosomes is not consistent with models in which the lengths of chromosomes are random or evolve solely by simple random processes. A better understanding of the mechanisms underlying karyotype evolution should enable the development of quantitative theoretical models that combine the random and deterministic processes that can be compared to experimental determinations of the karyotype in diverse settings.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".