CHROMOSOMAL MICROARRAY TESTING IN A DEVELOPMENTAL PAEDIATRICS SETTING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Current guidelines recommend chromosomal microarray (CMA) testing as a first line etiologic investigation for developmental disorders such as intellectual disability or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). How often a copy number variation (CNV) is found, a definitive etiologic diagnosis is made and a change in clinical management occurs has not been well studied in a community setting. OBJECTIVES The study objective was to examine the real world use of CMA testing in a developmental paediatric setting: the prevalence of positive results and management decisions. DESIGN/METHODS This was a retrospective, descriptive study. The charts of 170 children seen by a single developmental paediatrician in a small city over a 7 year period (2010 - 2017) were reviewed. Referrals were received from both urban and rural communities. Information regarding reason for referral, clinical diagnosis, requests for CMA testing, test results and subsequent management decisions were extracted. The patient age ranged from 1 to 18 years (average 5.1 years). Children were referred for a wide variety of developmental and behavioural problems. Developmental delay, disruptive behavior, possible autism spectrum disorder or speech delay were the most common reasons for referral. Children were considered for CMA testing according to published guidelines. The most common clinical diagnoses in referred children were attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), ASD and global developmental delay (GDD). Clinical management decisons were obtained from the medical chart and included follow-up visits. RESULTS CMA testing was recommended for 78 children, of which 65 had CMA testing completed (83%). Of these, 15 (23%) had an abnormal result and 6 (9%) were deemed pathogenic. The most common finding was a CNV at 2p16.3 in 2 children (3%). Of the children with pathogenic CNVs, 3 (50%) had more than one CNV. One child had a previously diagnosed trisomy X. One child with normal CMA had further testing, and a genetic diagnosis of atypical Rett Syndrome was made. The primary management decisions based on the CMA test results included parent education, genetic counselling and prognosis clarification. CONCLUSION In a developmental paediatrics setting, the use of CMA testing for first-line etiologic assessment in children with developmental disorders obtains positive results in close to 10% of tested children. This is similar to previously published results. Approximately 1/6 tested children had results of uncertain significance which require further study over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".