Variable outcomes in mosaic trisomy 16: five case reports and literature analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report five cases of mosaic trisomy 16 with variable outcomes in the context of the literature on mosaic trisomy 16. Complications in these cases include preeclampsia, IUGR, fetal anomalies, and death, with no predictable pattern. METHODS: Observation of five new cases and statistical analysis of 125 reported cases of mosaic trisomy 16 with prenatal detection and outcome data. RESULTS: (1) IUGR, premature delivery, and/or physical anomalies are observed commonly, even when the trisomy is thought to be confined to the placenta; (2) Level II mosaicism for trisomy 16 in amniotic fluid may reflect a true mosaic state with phenotypic consequences; (3) FISH is more sensitive than traditional cytogenetics in detecting mosaicism in all tissue types examined; (4) hCG levels can be extremely elevated, and MS-AFP levels are often elevated; and (5) Uniparental disomy (UPD) increases the rates of IUGR and physical anomalies in CPM cases. CONCLUSION: While there is no obvious mosaic trisomy 16 syndrome, IUGR and heart defects commonly occur, even if the mosaicism appears to be confined to the placenta. A completely normal outcome occurs only in about 20% of the cases; however, complications can often be limited to prematurity, small-for-gestational-age infants, and/or minor or surgically reparable birth defects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".