Recombinant Down syndrome: a case report and literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report a case of a child with features of Down syndrome (DS) but with an atypical karyotype. Initial chromosome analysis was 46,XX,dup(21q).ish 21(wcp21+). The father's chromosomes were normal. However, the mother was found to have mosaicism for a pericentric inversion of chromosome 21 (19/30 cells). The revised chromosome result of the child was 46,XX,rec(21)dup(21q)inv(21)(p12q21.1)mat. A literature review of similar cases (hereafter referred to as rec dup(21q)) was conducted to aid counselling about recurrence risks and the prognosis for this child. All previous reports of rec dup(21q) were secondary to a maternal pericentric inversion. Male carriers did not seem to be at risk of having offspring with the rec dup(21q), although the number of male carriers was limited. In those with rec dup(21q), the risk of congenital heart disease was similar to that of trisomy 21. In reported cases, the facial appearance was suggestive of Down syndrome but perhaps less striking. Although the data are limited, there is an indication the developmental disabilities and short stature are milder in those with rec dup(21q) compared to trisomy 21. These observations promote the concept that the region of chromosome 21 proximal to the duplication contains genetic information contributing to the expression of some features of Down syndrome.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it