MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995323957 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.32101

Molecular diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion and duplication by multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification

2007· article· en· W1995323957 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea C. Stachon, Berivan Baskin, Adam C. Smith, Andrea Shugar, Cheryl Cytrynbaum, Leona Fishman, Roberto Mendoza‐Londono, Regan Klatt, Ahmed Teebi, Peter N. Ray, Rosanna Weksberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
KeywordsMultiplex ligation-dependent probe amplificationMultiplexGene duplicationFluorescence in situ hybridizationBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Molecular biologyGeneticsCopy-number variationGeneChromosomeGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

22q11 Deletion syndrome (22q11DS) is the most common microdeletion syndrome in humans, occurring with an incidence of 1 in 4,000. In most cases the submicroscopic deletion spans 3 Mb, but there are a number of other overlapping and non-overlapping deletions that generate a similar phenotype. The majority of the 22q11.2 microdeletions can be ascertained using a standard fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay probing for TUPLE1 or N25 on 22q11.2. However, this test fails to detect deletions that are either proximal or distal to the FISH probes, and does not provide any information about the length of the deletion. In order to increase the detection rate of 22q11.2 deletion and to better characterize the size and position of such deletions we undertook a study of 22q11.2 cases using multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA). We used MLPA to estimate the size of the 22q11.2 deletions in 51 patients positive for TUPLE1 or N25 (FISH) testing, and to investigate 12 patients with clinical features suggestive of 22q11DS and negative FISH results. MLPA analysis confirmed a microdeletion in all 51 FISH-positive samples as well as microduplications in three samples. Further, it allowed us to delineate deletions not previously detected using standard clinical FISH probes in 2 of 12 subjects with clinical features suggestive of 22q11DS. We conclude that MLPA is a cost-effective and accurate diagnostic tool for 22q11DS with a higher sensitivity than FISH alone. Additional advantages of MLPA testing in our study included determination of deletion length and detection of 22q11.2 duplications. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations55
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207