MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894833808 · doi:10.1136/jmedgenet-2018-105389

16p13.11 microduplication in 45 new patients: refined clinical significance and genotype–phenotype correlations

2018· article· en· W2894833808 on OpenAlexaff
Laïla El Khattabi, Solveig Heide, Jean‐Hubert Caberg, Joris Andrieux, Martine Doco Fenzy, Caroline Vincent-Delorme, Patrick Callier, Sandra Chantot‐Bastaraud, Alexandra Afenjar, Odile Boute‐Bénéjean, Marie Pierre Cordier, Laurence Faivre, Christine Francannet, Marion Gérard, Alice Goldenberg, Alice Masurel‐Paulet, Anne‐Laure Mosca‐Boidron, Nathalie Marle, Anne Moncla, Nathalie Le Meur, Michèle Mathieu‐Dramard, Ghislaine Plessis, Gaëtan Lesca, Massimiliano Rossi, Patrick Edery, Andrée Delahaye‐Duriez, Loïc de Pontual, Anne Claude Tabet, Aziza Lebbar, Lesley Suiro, Christine Ioos, Abdelhafid Natiq, Siham Chafai Elalaoui, Chantal Missirian, Aline Receveur, C. François-Fiquet, Pascal Garnier, Catherine Yardin, Cécile Laroche, Philippe Vago, Damien Sanlaville, Jean‐Michel Dupont, Brigitte Benzacken, Eva Pipiras

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Genetics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderGene duplicationNeurocognitivePhenotypeGenetic counselingGenotype-phenotype distinctionGenotypeSpeech delayContext (archaeology)GeneticsClinical significanceAutismIntellectual disabilityMedicineBioinformaticsBiologyInternal medicinePsychiatryGeneCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The clinical significance of 16p13.11 duplications remains controversial while frequently detected in patients with developmental delay (DD), intellectual deficiency (ID) or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Previously reported patients were not or poorly characterised. The absence of consensual recommendations leads to interpretation discrepancy and makes genetic counselling challenging. This study aims to decipher the genotype–phenotype correlations to improve genetic counselling and patients’ medical care. Methods We retrospectively analysed data from 16 013 patients referred to 12 genetic centers for DD, ID or ASD, and who had a chromosomal microarray analysis. The referring geneticists of patients for whom a 16p13.11 duplication was detected were asked to complete a questionnaire for detailed clinical and genetic data for the patients and their parents. Results Clinical features are mainly speech delay and learning disabilities followed by ASD. A significant risk of cardiovascular disease was noted. About 90% of the patients inherited the duplication from a parent. At least one out of four parents carrying the duplication displayed a similar phenotype to the propositus. Genotype–phenotype correlations show no impact of the size of the duplicated segment on the severity of the phenotype. However, NDE1 and miR-484 seem to have an essential role in the neurocognitive phenotype. Conclusion Our study shows that 16p13.11 microduplications are likely pathogenic when detected in the context of DD/ID/ASD and supports an essential role of NDE1 and miR-484 in the neurocognitive phenotype. Moreover, it suggests the need for cardiac evaluation and follow-up and a large study to evaluate the aortic disease risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical GeneticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207