Recombinant chromosome 4 in two fetuses - case report and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recombinant chromosome 4 syndrome (rec 4 syndrome) is a rare genetic disorder, predominately resulting from a parental pericentric inversion of chromosome 4. To date, a total of 18 cases of rec (4) syndrome were published in literature. We report the first kindred of rec (4) syndrome analyzed using copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq). RESULTS: A woman with two adverse fetal outcomes was described in the present study. The first fetus presented with severe intrauterine growth restriction, hyposarca, hydrothorax and ascites. The CNV-seq revealed a dup 4q and del 4p. The second fetus presented with cardiovascular disease of ventricular septal defect, overriding aorta and persistent trunk. The CNV-seq revealed a dup 4p and del 4q. We collected 18 rec (4) cases through literature review. Genotype-phenotype correlation analysis was also performed. CONCLUSION: Recombinant 4 syndrome is a rare genetic disorder. It should be divided into two categories according to the alternative recombinant types. The clinical manifestations of rec (4) cases with dup 4q and del 4p are consistent with the Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. For cases harboring dup 4p and del 4q, the high incidence of congenital heart disease is prominent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".