Evidence for imprinting on chromosome 16: The effect of uniparental disomy on the outcome of mosaic trisomy 16 pregnancies
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
Although a number of infants with maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 16 (upd(16)mat) have been reported, the evidence for imprinting on chromosome 16 is not yet conclusive. To test the hypothesis that upd(16)mat has a distinct phenotype, which would support the existence of imprinted gene(s) on chromosome 16, statistical analysis was performed on a large series (n = 83) of mosaic trisomy 16 cases with molecular determination of uniparental disomy status. The incidence of upd(16)mat was 40%, which is consistent with the expected one third from random chromosome loss during trisomy rescue (P = 0.262). In pairwise comparisons, upd(16)mat was found to be associated with fetal growth restriction (P = 0.029) and with increased risk of major malformation (RR = 1.43; P = 0.053). Regression modeling showed that the effect of upd(16)mat on fetal/neonatal weight and malformation is independent of the degree of trisomy detected in the fetus. Regression modeling to control for the degree of trisomy detected in the placenta was not possible due to limited sample size. We conclude that upd(16)mat is associated with more severe growth restriction, and possibly, with higher risk of malformation. Our hypothesis is that imprinted gene(s) exist on chromosome 16 and that abnormal expression of these gene(s) in upd(16)mat cells during development results in decreased cell proliferation. Although we do not advocate prenatal testing for upd(16), studies on the long-term outcome of upd(16)mat neonates is necessary for counseling purposes.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it