ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
Uncovering genetic contributors to developmental delay and intellectual disability: a focus on CNVs in pediatric patients.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Developmental delay (DD) and intellectual disability (ID) are prevalent in children and often have genetic causes, particularly copy number variations (CNVs). Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) are key diagnostic tools for identifying genetic contributions to these disorders. This study assesses the prevalence and clinical impact of CNVs in pediatric DD and ID patients. Methods: Ninety-nine pediatric patients with DD or ID underwent CMA or WES. Of these, 82 received SNP array analysis, while 17 had WES. CNV pathogenicity was assessed using established databases and ACMG guidelines, with inheritance patterns determined where possible. Results: Across the 99 patients, 43 CNVs were identified in 40 individuals, with 32 classified as clinically significant, resulting in a diagnostic rate of 30.3%. These findings included 24 deletions (75%), 7 duplications (22%), and 1 instance of loss of heterozygosity (3%). Of the CNVs with known inheritance, 65.2% were Conclusion: This study supports CMA as an effective diagnostic tool for DD and ID, highlighting the importance of family-based CNV testing for genetic counseling. The findings emphasize the need for comprehensive genetic testing to improve diagnostic accuracy, with future multi-omics approaches potentially clarifying VOUS mechanisms and CNV variability in neurodevelopmental disorders.
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.