Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25061755›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Screening for intellectual disability using high-resolution CMA technology in a retrospective cohort from Central Brazil.

Rodrigo Roncato Pereira, Irene Plaza Pinto, Lysa Bernardes Minasi, Aldaires Vieira de Melo, Damiana Mirian da Cruz e Cunha, Alex Silva Cruz, Cristiano Luiz Ribeiro, Cláudio Carlos da Silva, Daniela de Melo e Silva, Aparecido Divino da Cruz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rodrigo Roncato PereiraNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Celular e Molecular, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Irene Plaza PintoNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação (Mestrado) em Genética, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Lysa Bernardes MinasiPrograma de Pós-Graduação (Mestrado) em Genética, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Aldaires Vieira de MeloNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biotecnologia e Biodiversidade, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Damiana Mirian da Cruz e CunhaNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação (Mestrado) em Genética, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Alex Silva CruzNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Celular e Molecular, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Cristiano Luiz RibeiroNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Cláudio Carlos da SilvaNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação (Mestrado) em Genética, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Laboratório de Citogenética Humana e Genética Molecular, Secretaria do Estado da Saúde de Goiás (LACEN/SESGO), Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
Daniela de Melo e SilvaNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Genética e Biologia Molecular, Laboratório de Genética e Biodiversidade, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
Aparecido Divino da CruzNúcleo de Pesquisas Replicon, Departamento de Biologia, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Celular e Molecular, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação (Mestrado) em Genética, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biotecnologia e Biodiversidade, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil; Laboratório de Citogenética Humana e Genética Molecular, Secretaria do Estado da Saúde de Goiás (LACEN/SESGO), Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás · BRUniversidade de Brasília · BRUniversidade Federal de Goiás · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intellectual disability is a complex, variable, and heterogeneous disorder, representing a disabling condition diagnosed worldwide, and the etiologies are multiple and highly heterogeneous. Microscopic chromosomal abnormalities and well-characterized genetic conditions are the most common causes of intellectual disability. Chromosomal Microarray Analysis analyses have made it possible to identify putatively pathogenic copy number variation that could explain the molecular etiology of intellectual disability. The aim of the current study was to identify possible submicroscopic genomic alterations using a high-density chromosomal microarray in a retrospective cohort of patients with otherwise undiagnosable intellectual disabilities referred by doctors from the public health system in Central Brazil. The CytoScan HD technology was used to detect changes in the genome copy number variation of patients who had intellectual disability and a normal karyotype. The analysis detected 18 CNVs in 60% of patients. Pathogenic CNVs represented about 22%, so it was possible to propose the etiology of intellectual disability for these patients. Likely pathogenic and unknown clinical significance CNVs represented 28% and 50%, respectively. Inherited and de novo CNVs were equally distributed. We report the nature of CNVs in patients from Central Brazil, representing a population not yet screened by microarray technologies.

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsAdultBrazilChromosomes, HumanDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleHumansIntellectual DisabilityKaryotypingMicroarray AnalysisMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25061755
PMCPMC4111347
OpenAlexW2035423925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.