Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 348

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nosology and classification of genetic skeletal disorders: 2006 revision

Open access
Superti‐Furga, Andrea, Unger, Sheila, and the Nosology Group of the International Skeletal Dysplasia Society·2007·American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A

Abstract

The objective of the paper is to provide the revision of the Nosology of Constitutional Disorders of Bone that incorporates newly recognized disorders and reflects new molecular and pathogenetic concepts. Criteria for inclusion of disorders were (1) significant skeletal involvement corresponding to the definition of skeletal dysplasias, metabolic bone disorders, dysostoses, and skeletal malformation and/or reduction syndromes, (2) publication and/or MIM listing, (3) genetic basis proven or very likely, and (4) nosologic autonomy confirmed by molecular or linkage analysis and/or distinctive diagnostic features and observation in multiple individuals or families. Three hundred seventy‐two different conditions were included and placed in 37 groups defined by molecular, biochemical and/or radiographic criteria. Of these conditions, 215 were associated with one or more of 140 different genes. Nosologic status was classified as final (mutations or locus identified), probable (pedigree evidence), or bona fide (multiple observations and clear diagnostic criteria, but no pedigree or locus evidence yet). The number of recognized genetic disorders with a significant skeletal component is growing and the distinction between dysplasias, metabolic bone disorders, dysostoses, and malformation syndromes is blurring. For classification purposes, pathogenetic and molecular criteria are integrating with morphological ones but disorders are still identified by clinical features and radiographic appearance. Molecular evidence leads to confirmation of individual entities and to the constitution of new groups, but also allows for delineation of related but distinct entities and indicates a previously unexpected heterogeneity of molecular mechanisms; thus, molecular evidence does not necessarily simplify the Nosology, and a further increase in the number of entities and growing complexity is expected. By providing an updated overview of recognized entities with skeletal involvement and of the underlying gene defects, the new Nosology can provide practical diagnostic help, facilitate the recognition of new entities, and foster and direct research in skeletal biology and genetic disorders. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajmg.a.31483

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 348

Metadata

Authors
Superti‐Furga, A., Unger, S., & and the Nosology Group of the International Skeletal Dysplasia Society
Venue
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-12-21
Volume
143A
Issue
1
Pages
1-18
ISSN
  • 1552-4825 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4833
OpenAlex
W2917301833
Cited by
348
References
10
FWCI
19.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nosology and classification of genetic skeletal disorders: 2006 revision. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ajmg.a.31483
The paper
Superti‐Furga, A., Unger, S., & and the Nosology Group of the International Skeletal Dysplasia Society. (2007). Nosology and classification of genetic skeletal disorders: 2006 revision. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.31483

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.