ArticleHuman genetics2026
Interobserver reliability and digital morphometric characterization of constitutional chromosomal heteromorphisms in clinical cytogenetics.
Article in Human genetics, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Constitutional chromosomal heteromorphisms are common cytogenetic variants involving constitutive heterochromatin and acrocentric short-arm structures whose visual identification and classification remain challenging in routine cytogenetic practice. This study evaluated interobserver reliability in the visual classification of constitutional chromosomal heteromorphisms and characterized differences between homologous chromosomes using digital morphometry. A retrospective cross-sectional study included peripheral blood cytogenetic studies performed between 2021 and 2024. Sixty-six cases with previously reported heteromorphisms were included, yielding 73 heteromorphism observations. Four cytogeneticists, blinded to the original classification and clinical information, independently evaluated selected Q-banded metaphases using predefined visual criteria. Interobserver agreement was assessed using Krippendorff's alpha and Gwet's AC1. Digital morphometric analysis was performed in Fiji by measuring the chromosomal region associated with each heteromorphism, defined as the target region (TR), and calculating its absolute size and its ratio to total chromosome size (TR/T). Homologous chromosomes were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Overall observed agreement was 70.1%, and complete agreement among the four cytogeneticists was observed in 45.5% of metaphases. Krippendorff's alpha was 0.340 (95% CI 0.276-0.398), and Gwet's AC1 was 0.453 (95% CI 0.380-0.532). Positive specific agreement was higher than negative specific agreement (77.1% vs. 56.9%). Significant morphometric asymmetry was identified in 11.0% of observations using absolute TR measurements and in 15.1% using TR/T. Findings for the acrocentric subgroup were based on only six observations and should be interpreted cautiously. Overall, visual classification showed limited reproducibility, particularly for pericentromeric heterochromatic variants. Digital morphometry provided complementary quantitative descriptors but did not resolve the limitations of classification based on chromosome morphology and should not be used as a confirmatory criterion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42888293What 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.