Trisomy 22 Mosaicism and Normal Developmental Outcome: Report of Two Patients and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mosaic trisomy 22 is known to be compatible with life. However, there are fewer than 20 reports in the literature of live born children and even fewer reports describing their neurodevelopmental outcome. We report on two girls with mosaic trisomy 22 and normal development at ages 7 and 5 years. Both girls had characteristic dysmorphic features including flat nasal bridge, preauricular pits, epicanthic folds, and 5th finger clinodactyly. They also had left-sided hemihyperplasia and short stature. In addition, one of them also had ventricular non-compaction and probable asplenia, two unique features not previously reported. In review of the literature, prenatal and postnatal growth failures were the most common complications of mosaic trisomy 22. Skeletal abnormalities including body asymmetry and 5th finger clinodactyly were also common. While the majority of patients with mosaic trisomy 22 had abnormal cognitive development, normal development has also been documented. It is conceivable that children with trisomy 22 mosaicism, with minimal physical findings and normal development are under diagnosed. Our patients further highlight this potential for normal cognitive outcome and draw attention to possible skewing of unfavorable prognosis for the final developmental outcome in this population. Appropriate information regarding developmental outcome is critical for genetic counseling, especially in prenatal situations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".