ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. 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.
- 16p13.11 deletion/duplication: a large cohort study on prenatal diagnosis, postnatal outcomes, and phenotypic manifestations.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Prenatal Diagnosis, Ultrasound Findings, and Follow-Up Evaluation of 16p13.11 Deletion and Duplication Syndromes: Preliminary Assessment of Fetal Genotype-Phenotype.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2025Article
- Complementary role of echocardiography, karyotyping, and chromosomal microarray in congenital cardiac anomalies.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Copy number changes at Chromosomal 16p13.11 have been implicated in a variety of human diseases including congenital cardiac abnormalities. The clinical correlation of copy number variants (CNVs) in this region with developmental abnormalities remains controversial as most of the patients inherit the duplication from an unaffected parent. Methods: We performed CNV analysis on 164 patients with defective left-right (LR) patterning based on whole genome-exome sequencing (WG-ES) followed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) validation. Most cases were accompanied with complex congenital heart disease (CHD). Results: CNVs at 16p13.11 were identified in a total of 21 cases, accounting for 12.80% (21/164) evaluated cases. We observed a marked overrepresentation of chromosome 16p13.11 duplications in cases when compared with healthy controls according to literature reports (15/164, 9.14% versus 0.09% in controls). Notably, in two independent family trios, Conclusion: Our study provides new family-trio based evidences to support 16p13.11 micro-duplications predispose individuals to defective cardiac left-right patterning and laterality disorder.
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.