A Multicenter Analysis of Abnormal Chromosomal Microarray Findings in Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) provides an opportunity to understand genetic causes of congenital heart disease (CHD). The methods for describing cardiac phenotypes in patients with CMA abnormalities have been inconsistent, which may complicate clinical interpretation of abnormal testing results and hinder a more complete understanding of genotype–phenotype relationships. Methods and Results Patients with CHD and abnormal clinical CMA were accrued from 9 pediatric cardiac centers. Highly detailed cardiac phenotypes were systematically classified and analyzed for their association with CMA abnormality. Hierarchical classification of each patient into 1 CHD category facilitated broad analyses. Inclusive classification allowing multiple CHD types per patient provided sensitive descriptions. In 1363 registry patients, 28% had genomic disorders with well‐recognized CHD association, 67% had clinically reported copy number variants (CNVs) with rare or no prior CHD association, and 5% had regions of homozygosity without CNV. Hierarchical classification identified expected CHD categories in genomic disorders, as well as uncharacteristic CHDs. Inclusive phenotyping provided sensitive descriptions of patients with multiple CHD types, which occurred commonly. Among CNVs with rare or no prior CHD association, submicroscopic CNVs were enriched for more complex types of CHD compared with large CNVs. The submicroscopic CNVs that contained a curated CHD gene were enriched for left ventricular obstruction or septal defects, whereas CNVs containing a single gene were enriched for conotruncal defects. Neuronal‐related pathways were over‐represented in single‐gene CNVs, including top candidate causative genes NRXN3 , ADCY2 , and HCN1 . Conclusions Intensive cardiac phenotyping in multisite registry data identifies genotype–phenotype associations in CHD patients with abnormal CMA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".