Prenatal cytogenetic assessment and inv(2)(p11.2q13)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To present a series of prenatally detected cases of recurrent pericentric inversions with euchromatic breakpoints and to review the literature to determine whether parental karyotyping is required for genetic counselling. METHODS: Cases of recurrent pericentric inversions with euchromatic breakpoints were collected from Canadian Cytogenetic Laboratories. Cases included inversions for chromosome 1(p13q21), chromosome 2(p11.2q13), chromosome 5(p13q13) and chromosome 10(p11.2q21.2). RESULTS: The incidence of de novo inv(2)(p11.2q13) was low, with one case among 91 inversions. There were no cases of de novo inv(10) (p11.2q21.2) among 17 reported and one case of de novo inv(5)(p13q13) among 21 reported. CONCLUSION: Our study, and data from the literature, suggests that most cases of inv(2)(p11.2q13) have been stably inherited, that de novo cases of inv(2) are rare and that both inherited and de novo forms are without phenotypic or developmental consequences. We suggest that parental karyotyping for cases of inv(2) is not useful in counselling as it may generate unnecessary parental anxiety over a chromosomal finding that is likely innocuous.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".