Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 542

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Charcot‐marie‐tooth disease subtypes and genetic testing strategies

Open access
Saporta, Anita S.D., Sottile, Stephanie L., Miller, Lindsey J., Feely, Shawna M.E., Siskind, Carly E., Shy, Michael E.·2011·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Objective: Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth disease (CMT) affects 1 in 2,500 people and is caused by mutations in more than 30 genes. Identifying the genetic cause of CMT is often necessary for family planning, natural history studies, and for entry into clinical trials. However genetic testing can be both expensive and confusing to patients and physicians. Methods: We analyzed data from 1,024 of our patients to determine the percentage and features of each CMT subtype within this clinic population. We identified distinguishing clinical and physiological features of the subtypes that could be used to direct genetic testing for patients with CMT. Results: Of 1,024 patients evaluated, 787 received CMT diagnoses. A total of 527 patients with CMT (67%) received a genetic subtype, while 260 did not have a mutation identified. The most common CMT subtypes were CMT1A, CMT1X, hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsies (HNPP), CMT1B, and CMT2A. All other subtypes accounted for less than 1% each. Eleven patients had >1 genetically identified subtype of CMT. Patients with genetically identified CMT were separable into specific groups based on age of onset and the degree of slowing of motor nerve conduction velocities. Interpretation: Combining features of the phenotypic and physiology groups allowed us to identify patients who were highly likely to have specific subtypes of CMT. Based on these results, we propose a strategy of focused genetic testing for CMT, illustrated in a series of flow diagrams created as testing guides. ANN NEUROL 2011;69:22–33.

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/ana.22166

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 542

Metadata

Authors
Saporta, A. S. D., Sottile, S. L., Miller, L. J., Feely, S. M. E., Siskind, C. E., & Shy, M. E.
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
22-33
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W2012859692
Cited by
542
References
21
FWCI
18.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Charcot‐marie‐tooth disease subtypes and genetic testing strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ana.22166
The paper
Saporta, A. S. D., Sottile, S. L., Miller, L. J., Feely, S. M. E., Siskind, C. E., & Shy, M. E. (2011). Charcot‐marie‐tooth disease subtypes and genetic testing strategies. Annals of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22166

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.