ArticleJournal of medical genetics1998
Prediction of liability to orofacial clefting using genetic and craniofacial data from parents.
Article in Journal of medical genetics, 1998. 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, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cephalometric analysis of parents of patients with cleft lip and/or palate.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2024Article
- A comparative study of facial asymmetry in philippine, colombian, and ethiopian families with nonsyndromic cleft lip palate.Plastic surgery international · 2012Article
- Differential parental transmission of markers in RUNX2 among cleft case-parent trios from four populations.Genetic epidemiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCleft lip with or without cleft palate (CL(P)) and isolated cleft palate (CP) are separate clinical entities and for both polygenic multifactorial aetiology has been proposed. Parents of children with orofacial clefting have been shown to have distinctive differences in their facial shape when compared to matched controls.
objectiveTo test the hypothesis that genetic and morphometric factors predispose to orofacial clefting and that these markers differ for CL(P) and CP. Methods-Polymorphisms at the transforming growth factor alpha (TGFalpha) locus in 83 parents of children with nonsyndromic orofacial clefts were analysed, and their craniofacial morphology was assessed using lateral cephalometry.
resultsParents of children with CL(P) and CP showed an increased frequency of the TGFalpha/TaqI C2 allele (RR=4.10, p=0.009) relative to the comparison group. Also the TGFalpha/BamHI A1 allele was more prevalent in the CP parents. MULTIVARIATE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Using stepwise logistic regression analysis the TGFalpha/TaqI C2 polymorphism provides the best model for liability to orofacial clefting. To determine the type of clefting a model involving interaction between the parental TGFalpha/BamHI and TGFalpha/RsaI genotypes showed the best fit. Using genotype only to predict the clefting defect in the children according to parental genotype, 68.3% could be correctly classified. By adding information on craniofacial measurements in the parents, 76% of CP and 94% of CL(P) parents could be correctly classified.
conclusionsThis study provides a model for prediction of liability to orofacial clefting. These findings suggest that different molecular aberrations at the TGFalpha locus may modify the risk for CP and CL(P).
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.