A survey of assisted reproductive technology births and imprinting disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomic imprinting is an epigenetic process in which allele-specific gene expression is dependent on the parental inheritance. Although only a minority of human genes are imprinted, those that have been identified to date have been preferentially implicated in prenatal growth and neurodevelopment. Mutations or epimutations in imprinted genes or imprinting control centres are associated with imprinting disorders such as Angelman syndrome (AS) and Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS). Recently, an increased frequency of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conceptions has been reported in children with BWS and AS. However, the risk of imprinting disorders in ART children is unknown. METHODS: We undertook a survey of 2492 children born after ART in the Republic of Ireland and Central England with the aim of detecting cases (both clinically diagnosed and previously unrecognized) of BWS and AS in this cohort. The response rate to an initial questionnaire was 61%, corresponding to data for 1524 children. After evaluation of the questionnaire, 70 children were invited for a detailed clinical assessment, and 47 accepted (response rate of 67%). RESULTS: In this entire cohort, we detected one case of BWS and no cases of AS. We did not find evidence that there exists a significant group of ART children with unrecognized milder forms of AS or BWS. CONCLUSIONS: Although previous studies have suggested an increased relative risk of BWS and AS after ART, our findings suggest that the absolute risk of imprinting disorders in children conceived by ART is small (<1%). Precise risk estimates of risk are difficult to define because of the rarity of the conditions and incomplete response rates to the questionnaire and clinical examination invitations. Hence further investigations are indicated to (i) refine the absolute and relative risks of imprinting disorders after ART and (ii) ensure that changes in ART protocols are not associated with increased frequencies of epigenetic changes and imprinting disorders in children born after ART.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".