Outcome of the routine assessment of patients with mental retardation in a genetics clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reviewed hospital and genetics clinic records of 411 patients evaluated in our department from 1986 to 1997 inclusive. Major objectives were to establish how often and under what circumstances a specific genetic/syndrome diagnosis was made and to determine the value of laboratory tests in the hope of gaining a more selective approach to referral, evaluation, and use of the laboratory. A specific genetic/syndrome diagnosis was made in 19.9% of cases, and in a further 4.4% the referring diagnosis was eliminated but no new diagnosis made. There was a significant excess of affected males (277:134) and of affected male sib pairs over expectation, suggesting an additional, potentially important, contribution from nonspecific X-linked mental retardation (MR). Factors associated with making a diagnosis included referral from a pediatrician or neurologist, absence of cerebral palsy, presence of more than three minor anomalies and/or an unusual appearance, a recognizable Gestalt or key anomaly. There was a linear relationship between the likelihood of making a diagnosis and the number of minor anomalies. Factors not associated with making a diagnosis included the year when the patient was seen, degree of MR, number of prior specialists seen, presence of a major malformation, occurrence of seizures, and a head circumference either <3rd or >97th centile. Although chromosome studies were somewhat less likely to be ordered in patients with less severe MR, the positive rate was unaffected by the severity of the MR. The rate of abnormal results was positively correlated with the presence of minor anomalies and/or an unusual appearance. None of 134 studies carried out on patients with </=3 minor anomalies alone were positive. Fragile X studies were less likely to be ordered with increasing levels of MR and 10 of 14 positive test results were among those with mild delay. Thirteen of 14 diagnoses were based on Gestalt. Molecular and fluorescence in situ hybridization studies had a positive rate of >60% when ordered by a clinical geneticist compared with 0% when ordered by other physicians. Results showed that use of the laboratory was inconsistent and not clearly based on the findings in a particular child. Significant changes in patterns of referral and the evaluation process could be made that would result in significant economies of time and laboratory use and a minimum level of missed diagnoses.
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 | 0.000 | 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".