MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993580462 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31472

Prenatal detection of subtelomeric rearrangements by multi‐subtelomere FISH in a cohort of fetuses with major malformations

2006· article· en· W1993580462 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Gignac, Karine Danis, Frédérique Tihy, Emmanuelle Lemyre

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubtelomereKaryotypeFetusPrenatal diagnosisBiologyCongenital malformationsConcordanceChromosomeGeneticsPregnancyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cryptic unbalanced subtelomeric rearrangements have been identified as an important contributor ( approximately 6%) to the etiology of mental retardation and dysmorphism. Our objective was to study the role of these rearrangements in the development of fetal malformations. Multi-subtelomere FISH was performed on cells from 48 fetuses with major malformations diagnosed by prenatal ultrasound with a normal karyotype at a minimal 400 band resolution. We developed a method of performing multi-subtelomere FISH on a single slide of amniocyte metaphase spreads. We identified five subtelomeric abnormalities: two derivative chromosomes inherited from a parent carrying a balanced translocation, two known polymorphisms, and one novel familial variant. These results show a similar frequency (4%) of clinically significant subtelomeric rearrangements to that found in children with multiple malformations. This study adds to a growing number of reports of cryptic subtelomeric rearrangements associated with congenital malformations and highlights the relevance and technical feasibility of multi-subtelomere FISH screening of prenatal samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207