ReviewCurrent opinion in genetics & development2021
A cross-comparison of cognitive ability across 8 genomic disorders.
Review in Current opinion in genetics & development, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The importance of intrafamilial cognitive phenotyping by the case of 22q11.2 deletion, 15q11.2 deletion, and families with inherited copy number variants of unknown significance.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2025Article
- Developmental milestones and cognitive trajectories in school-aged children with 16p11.2 deletion.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2025Article
- Assessing harmonized intelligence measures in a multinational study.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic disorders result from rearrangement of the human genome. Most genomic disorders are caused by copy number variants (CNV), deletions or duplications of several hundred kilobases. Many CNV loci are associated with autism, schizophrenia, and most commonly, intellectual disability (ID). However, there is little comparison of cognitive ability measures across these CNV disorders. This study aims to understand whether existing data can be leveraged for a cross-comparison of cognitive ability among multiple CNV. We found there is a lack of harmonization among assessment instruments and little standardization for reporting summary data across studies. Despite these limitations, we identified a differential impact of CNV loci on cognitive ability. Our data suggest that future cross-comparisons of CNV disorders will reveal meaningful differences across the phenotypic spectrum, especially if standardized phenotypic assessment is achieved.
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.