Cryptic duplication of 21q in an individual with a clinical diagnosis of Down syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe an adult male who was diagnosed with Down syndrome (DS) at 9 months of age, but had repeatedly normal karyotypes until recent mid-resolution chromosome studies showed a possible duplication of 21q22.13 to 21q22.3. The abnormality was investigated using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) studies. These showed hybridization of a whole chromosome paint probe (wcp21, Oncor Coatasome 21) to the entire length of both chromosome 21 homologues and one very large hybridization signal of a cosmid contig probe localized within bands 21q22.13-21q22.2(LSI-21, Vysis) on the ?dup(21q) homologue. CGH analysis identified a ratio of 1.5 for the segment of chromosome 21 involving band 21q22, indicating a gain of part, or all, of the terminal band of chromosome 21. The karyotype was thus defined as 46,XY,?dup(21) (q22.13q22.2).ish dup(21)(LSI-21++,wcp21+). Common DS characteristics in our case and 12 previously reported cases with duplications involving chromosome 21 included mental retardation, fifth finger clinodactyly, open mouth and oblique eye fissures. Transverse palmar creases and congenital heart defects, seen in DS less than 40% of the time, were infrequent. Presence of these features did not appear to depend on the specific portion of chromosome 21 that was duplicated. A review of 18 additional clinical features showed no consistent phenotype-genotype correlations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".