ArticleFrontiers in genetics2018
Specificity: A Phenotypic Comparison of Communication-Relevant Domains Between Youth With Down Syndrome and Fragile X Syndrome.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Parent-reported outcome measures evaluating communication in individuals with rare neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review.International journal of language & communication disordersPooled it
- The relationship between language and executive functions in adolescents with Down syndrome and fragile X syndrome.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2026Article
- Assessing Pragmatic Skills in People with Intellectual Disabilities.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Sex-related differences in genetically determined Alzheimer's disease.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Review
- Associations Among Sex, Cognitive Ability, and Autism Symptoms in Individuals with Down Syndrome.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2024Article
- Triplication of the interferon receptor locus contributes to hallmarks of Down syndrome in a mouse model.Nature genetics · 2023Article
- The association between expressive language skills and adaptive behavior in individuals with Down syndrome.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Pragmatic Profiles of Adults with Fragile X Syndrome and Williams Syndrome.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Communication in fragile X syndrome: Patterns and implications for assessment and intervention.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Considerations for measuring individual outcomes across contexts in Down syndrome: Implications for research and clinical trials.International review of research in developmental disabilities · 2022Article
- Age and gender-related differences in quality of life of Bangladeshi patients with Down Syndrome: A cross-sectional study.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Semantic Verbal Fluency in Youth with Down Syndrome: Analysis of Conventional and Contextual Cluster Formation.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Using telehealth-delivered procedures to collect a parent-implemented expressive language sampling narrative task in monolingual and bilingual families with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A pilot study.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2021Article
- Relationship between Apgar scores and long-term cognitive outcomes in individuals with Down syndrome.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Spoken language outcome measures for treatment studies in Down syndrome: feasibility, practice effects, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of variables generated from expressive language sampling.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2021Article
- Expressive language development in adolescents with Down syndrome and fragile X syndrome: change over time and the role of family-related factors.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2020Article
- Expressive language sampling as a source of outcome measures for treatment studies in fragile X syndrome: feasibility, practice effects, test-retest reliability, and construct validity.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the shared presence of an intellectual disability (ID), there is a growing literature documenting important phenotypic differences between Down syndrome (DS) and fragile X syndrome (FXS). These conclusions, however, are based on a synthesis across studies, each of which typically includes only measures of a limited number of constructs, and with differing participant characteristics. Firmer conclusions regarding specific phenotypes require a single comprehensive multi-domain assessment of participants with the syndrome groups being well matched on chronological age (CA) and cognitive functioning. The current study was designed to fill this gap by assessing several important cognitive and behavioral domains relevant to communication, such as: structural language skills, false belief understanding, as well as pragmatics and behavioral difficulties, in 30 adolescents of both sexes with DS and 39 males with FXS, matched on CA and nonverbal (NV) cognition. After statistically controlling for NV cognition, we did not find significant syndrome differences in expressive and receptive structural language or false belief understanding. In contrast, participants with DS displayed less stereotyped language and fewer behavioral difficulties compared to males with FXS. Within-syndrome associations among the targeted domains are described. Finally, females with DS were less impaired than males with DS in almost all structural language domains, whereas no significant sex-related differences were observed in NV cognition, false belief understanding, pragmatics, or behavior. Clinical and methodological implications of the findings are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.