MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057126702 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.31015

Submicroscopic deletions and duplications in individuals with intellectual disability detected by array‐CGH

2005· article· en· W2057126702 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Tyson, Chansonette Harvard, R. Locker, Jan M. Friedman, Sylvie Langlois, M. E. Suzanne Lewis, Margot Van Allen, Martin J. Somerville, Laura Arbour, L. Clarke, B. McGilivray, Siu Li Yong, J. Siegel‐Bartel, Evica Rajcan‐Separovic

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbnormalityGeneticsIntellectual disabilityEtiologyChromosomal AbnormalityBiologyCopy-number variationKaryotypeChromosomeGene duplicationPopulationStructural variationGenomeMedicineGenePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intellectual disability (ID) affects about 3% of the population (IQ < 70), and in about 40% of moderate (IQ 35-49) to severe ID (IQ < 34), and 70% of cases of mild ID (IQ 50-70), the etiology of the disease remains unknown. It has long been suspected that chromosomal gains and losses undetectable by routine cytogenetic analysis (i.e., less than 5-10 Mb in size) are implicated in ID of unknown etiology. Array CGH has recently been used to perform a genome-wide screen for submicroscopic gains and losses in individuals with a normal karyotype but with features suggestive of a chromosome abnormality. In two recent studies, the technique has demonstrated a approximately 15% detection rate for de novo copy number changes of individual clones or groups of clones. Here, we describe a study of 22 individuals with mild to moderate ID and nonsyndromic pattern of dysmorphic features suspicious of an underlying chromosome abnormality, using the 3 Mb and 1 Mb commercial arrays (Spectral Genomics). Deletions and duplications of 16 clones, previously described to show copy number variability in normal individuals [Iafrate et al., 2004; Lapierre et al., 2004; Schoumans et al., 2004; Vermeesch et al., 2005] were seen in 21/22 subjects and were considered polymorphisms. In addition, three subjects showed submicroscopic deletions and duplications not previously reported as normal variants. Two of these submicroscopic changes were of de novo origin (microdeletions at 7q36.3 and a microduplication at 11q12.3-13.1) and one was of unknown origin as parental testing of origin could not be performed (microduplication of Xp22.3). The clinical description of the three subjects with submicroscopic chromosomal changes at 7q36.3, 11q12.3-13.1, Xp22.3 is provided.

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 score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.242
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations107
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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