Chromosome 15q overgrowth syndrome: Prenatal diagnosis, molecular cytogenetic characterization, and perinatal findings in a fetus with dup(15)(q26.2q26.3)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present molecular cytogenetic characterization of a prenatally detected duplication of 15q26.2→q26.3 in a fetus with overgrowth. CASE REPORT: A 34-year-old para 0 woman underwent amniocentesis at 18 weeks of gestation because of advanced maternal age. Amniocentesis revealed a derivative chromosome 15, or der(15), with additional material at the end of the long arm of one chromosome 15. Parental karyotypes were normal. Fetal overgrowth was first noted at 21 weeks of gestation. Repeated amniocentesis was performed at 22 weeks of gestation. Array comparative genomic hybridization revealed a 4.71-Mb duplication from 15q26.2 to 15q26.3 encompassing the IGF1R gene. Fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis using the bacterial artificial chromosome clone probes specific for 15q26.2-q26.3 and the subtelomeric region of 15q showed a direct duplication and no terminal deletion in the der(15). Polymorphic DNA marker analysis determined a paternal origin of the duplication of 15q. Level II ultrasound at 23 weeks of gestation revealed a fetal biometry equivalent to 26 weeks. The pregnancy was subsequently terminated, and a 1062-g (>99(th) centile) malformed fetus was delivered at 24 weeks of gestation with craniofacial dysmorphism, craniosynostosis, and overgrowth. CONCLUSION: The present case provides evidence for prenatal overgrowth, craniosynostosis, and characteristic facial dysmorphism in association with a duplication of 15q26.2→q26.3 and a duplication of the IGF1R gene. Prenatal diagnosis of fetal overgrowth should include a differential diagnosis of the chromosome 15q overgrowth syndrome.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".