Velopharyngeal insufficiency: high detection rate of genetic abnormalities if associated with additional features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical and molecular-genetic characteristics of 34 children who were referred to the clinical genetics department with a presenting diagnosis of definite or suspected velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI, defined as the inability to close off the nasal from the oral cavity during speech) or hyponasal/hypernasal speech. All the patients referred also had additional anomalies and did not therefore comprise the whole VPI population. METHODS: Patients were clinically investigated by a clinical geneticist. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation for chromosome 22q11 deletion and/or array comparative genomic hybridisation (array CGH) analysis was performed in all cases. A literature review was performed using the Pubmed online database. RESULTS: Microdeletions or microduplications were identified in half of the patients. Six patients (∼18% of total) carried a chromosome 22q11 microdeletion, one patient had a chromosome 22q11 microduplication, and four patients had microdeletions in other chromosomes that were considered likely to be associated with the phenotype. One patient had KBG syndrome. Thus, an underlying genetic abnormality was found in approximately one-third (35%) of our patients. An additional seven patients harboured copy number variations that were considered benign or of unknown significance. CONCLUSIONS: We present an overview of patients with VPI or hyponasal/hypernasal speech with additional anomalies and their clinical and genetic findings. In one-third of these patients, an underlying genetic abnormality was identified. This has important implications for family counselling and medical follow-up. Furthermore, we recommend array CGH testing in all patients with VPI and associated anomalies because of the high percentage of copy number variants identified in these patients.
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".