MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026808784 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31338

Male pseudohermaphroditism and gonadal mosaicism in a 47,XY,+22 fetus

2006· article· en· W2026808784 on OpenAlexaff
Mélanie Beaulieu Bergeron, Danh Tran‐Thanh, Jean‐Christophe Fournet, Emmanuelle Lemyre, Nicole Lemieux, Dorothée Bouron‐Dal Soglio

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMale pseudohermaphroditismMonosomySexual differentiationY chromosomeBiologyFetusUterusKaryotypeTrisomyPseudohermaphroditismGonadX chromosomeTurner syndromeDisorders of sex developmentAnatomyChromosomeEndocrinologyGeneticsPregnancyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trisomy 22 syndrome manifestations include cranial and facial anomalies. Ambiguous genitalia have been described in some fetus, but histological examination of the gonads has been rarely provided. We report here the first case of a male pseudohermaphrodite fetus with non-mosaic full trisomy 22 in amniocytes and presenting with ambiguous external genitalia, testes, and a uterus. In this case, we have further analyzed cytogenetically gonadal and uterine tissues. FISH analyses on paraffin-embedded gonads and uterus indicated the presence of two cell lines: XY and monosomy X, with 22%-50% of uterine cells having monosomy X, while 85%-100% of right and 77%-96% of left testicular cells were XY. The distribution of sex chromosomes observed in these tissues could explain the sexual differentiation observed in this fetus. On the other hand, this phenotype could also have resulted from cryptic anomalies in one or several genes implicated in sexual differentiation. Further evidence is thus needed before identifying the true cause of pseudohermaphroditism in our patient.

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 score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part ASame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207