ArticleNature genetics2014
Reaching a CNV milestone.
Article in Nature genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The past, present, and future for constitutional ring chromosomes: A report of the international consortium for human ring chromosomes.HGG advances · 2022Review
- Neurologic Features with Pathogenic Copy Number Variants.Pediatric neurology briefs · 2020Article
- Yield of comparative genomic hybridization microarray in pediatric neurology practice.Neurology. Genetics · 2019Article
- Clinical Application of Chromosome Microarray Analysis in Han Chinese Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders.Neuroscience bulletin · 2018Article
- Array-CGH Analysis in a Cohort of Phenotypically Well-Characterized Individuals with "Essential" Autism Spectrum Disorders.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2018Article
- Article
- Chromosomal microarray analysis, or comparative genomic hybridization: A high throughput approach.MethodsX · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A new study compares the copy number variants (CNVs) in 29,085 children with developmental delay to those in 19,584 healthy controls, providing a valuable compilation of such data. The phenotypic variability and wide range of penetrance for these variants present societal challenges regarding how these findings might be incorporated into newborn screening, early intervention and, perhaps, carrier testing and prenatal diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25257083What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.