Reproductive Outcomes in Adults with 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 22q11.2 microdeletion and its associated conditions could affect reproductive outcomes but there is limited information on this important area. We investigated reproductive outcomes in a sample of 368 adults with typical 22q11.2 deletions (median age 32.8, range 17.9–76.3 years; 195 females), and without moderate-severe intellectual disability, who were followed prospectively. We examined all reproductive outcomes and possible effects of diagnosis as a transmitting parent on these outcomes. We used logistic regression to investigate factors relevant to reproductive fitness (liveborn offspring). There were 63 (17.1%) individuals with 157 pregnancy outcomes, 94 (60.3%) of which involved live births. Amongst the remainder involving a form of loss, were seven (5.77%) stillbirths, significantly greater than population norms (p < 0.0001). For 35 (55.6%) individuals, diagnosis of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) followed diagnosis of an offspring, with disproportionately fewer individuals had major congenital heart disease (CHD) in that transmitting parent subgroup. The regression model indicated that major CHD, in addition to previously identified factors, was a significant independent predictor of reduced reproductive fitness. There was evidence of persisting diagnostic delay and limited prenatal genetic testing. The findings indicate that pregnancy loss is an important health issue for adults with 22q11.2DS. CHD and/or its absence is a factor to consider in reproductive outcome research. Further studies are warranted to better appreciate factors that may contribute to reproductive outcomes, including technological advances. The results suggest the need for ongoing efforts to provide optimal education and supports to individuals with 22q11.2DS, and their clinicians, around reproductive issues and early diagnosis.
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".