ArticleAutism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research2024
Motor difficulties in 16p11.2 copy number variation.
Article in Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The pleiotropic spectrum of proximal 16p11.2 CNVs.American journal of human genetics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rare genetic variants 16p11.2 duplication and 16p11.2 deletion have opposing effects on brain structure and function, yet are associated with broadly similar clinical phenotypes that include autism, intellectual impairment, psychiatric illness, and motor difficulties. In recent years, studies have identified subtle distinctions between the phenotypic effects of 16p11.2 duplication and 16p11.2 deletion with respect to patterns of autism, intellectual impairment, and psychiatric illness. However, although divergent phenotypic findings in some motor domains have been reported, no study has yet made a comprehensive comparison of motor difficulties between 16p11.2 deletion and 16p11.2 duplication carriers to elucidate points of convergence and divergence. We sought to make such a comparison in a group of 133 16p11.2 deletion carriers, 122 duplication carriers, and 388 familial controls, hypothesizing that motor impairment would overall be greater in deletion than duplication carriers. In a series of regression models, we found that 16p11.2 deletion status tended to predict greater impairment along indices of gross motor function, but less impairment along indices of fine motor function. These findings point to a potential pattern of performance difficulties that could be investigated in future studies. Elucidating motor differences between 16p11.2 duplication and 16p11.2 deletion carriers may help in understanding the complex effect of 16p11.2 copy number variation and other rare genetic causes of autism.
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.