MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080064763 · doi:10.1002/ajmg.b.30730

Array comparative genomic hybridization in global developmental delay

2008· article· en· W2080064763 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Shevell, Bassem A. Bejjani, Myriam Srour, Emily A. Rorem, Nicholas R. Hall, Lisa G. Shaffer

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Medical Genetics Part B Neuropsychiatric Genetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationContext (archaeology)Copy-number variationGeneticsFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyComputational biologyGenomeBioinformaticsMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Array-based comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) is an emerging technology that allows for the genome-wide detection of DNA copy number changes (CNC) such as deletions or duplications. In this study, array-based CGH was applied to a consecutive series of children with previously undiagnosed non-syndromal global developmental delay (GDD) to assess potential etiologic yield. METHODS: The children in this study were drawn from a previously reported consecutive series of children with well-defined GDD. Almost all subjects had undergone prior karyotyping and neuroimaging studies with non-diagnostic results. Array-based CGH was undertaken using the SignatureChip(R) (1887 BACs representing 622 loci) with abnormalities verified by subsequent FISH analysis and testing of parents to distinguish between pathogenic and familial non-pathogenic variants. RESULTS: On CGH analysis in our study, 6 of 94 children (6.4%) had a causally related pathogenic CNC. Three were sub-telomeric in location. An analysis of a variety of clinical factors revealed that only the presence of minor dysmorphic features (<3) was predictive of etiologic yield on CGH analysis (4/26 vs. 2/68, P = 0.05). Severity of delay was not found to be predictive. INTERPRETATION: In children with non-syndromal GDD, array-based CGH has an etiologic yield of 6.4%. This suggests that this emerging technology may be of diagnostic value when applied subsequent to detailed history, physical examination, and targeted laboratory testing. Array CGH may merit consideration as a first-tier test in the context of a child with unexplained GDD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations53
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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