CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 87Genetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesSexual Differentiation and DisordersImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune Disorders

Ascertainment bias in Turner syndrome: new insights from girls who were diagnosed incidentally in prenatal life

Gunther, Daniel F., Eugster, Erica, Zagar, Anthony J., Bryant, Constance G., Davenport, Marsha L., Quigley, Charmian A.·2004·PEDIATRICS
DOI 10.1542/peds.2003-1122-l
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in phenotype and other clinical features between patients who have Turner syndrome diagnosed incidentally (on the basis of a prenatal karyotype performed for reasons unrelated to suspicion of Turner syndrome, eg, advanced maternal age) or traditionally (on the basis of either a prenatal karyotype performed for abnormal ultrasound findings or a postnatal karyotype performed for clinical findings suggesting Turner syndrome). METHODS: Analysis was performed on baseline data from 88 girls, aged 9 months to 4 years, who were randomized into a multicenter growth hormone intervention trial. Baseline information included a detailed medical history (especially of cardiac and renal anomalies), examination for presence of phenotypic features characteristic of Turner syndrome, length or height (depending on age) expressed as a standard deviation score, and weight standard deviation score. Patients were classified to either the "incidental" (N = 16) or the "traditional" (N = 72) diagnosis group as described above. RESULTS: The incidental group had significantly fewer total phenotypic features of Turner syndrome than the traditional group (3.6 +/- 2.9 vs 6.7 +/- 2.9). When subgrouped by karyotype, the proportion of patients who manifested phenotypic features was greatest in patients with a 45,X nonmosaic karyotype, lowest in the patients with 45,X/46,XX mosaicism, and intermediate in those with "other" karyotypes. Fewer congenital cardiac defects were observed in the incidental group (31%) compared with the traditional group (64%), but there was no difference between the groups in the prevalence of renal defects. Karyotype distribution differed significantly between the traditional and incidental groups: 74% versus 19% had the nonmosaic 45,X karyotype in the traditional group and 7% versus 56% had the mosaic 45,X/46,XX karyotype. CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose Turner syndrome was diagnosed incidentally had significantly fewer phenotypic features and cardiac defects, as well as a greater proportion of mosaic karyotypes, compared with patients whose Turner syndrome was diagnosed clinically. These results support the theory that significant ascertainment bias exists in our understanding Turner syndrome, with important implications for prenatal counseling.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2003-1122-l

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the absence of ultrasound anomalies, fetuses with mosaic TS diagnosed prenatally as an incidental finding are expected to have a milder phenotype than the ones ascertained postnatally.

    “In the absence of ultrasound anomalies, fetuses with mosaic TS diagnosed prenatally as an incidental finding are expected to have a milder phenotype than the ones ascertained postnatally.56-58”

    From Clinical practice guidelines for the care of girls and women with Turner syndrome. (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gunther, D. F., Eugster, E., Zagar, A. J., Bryant, C. G., Davenport, M. L., & Quigley, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Seattle Children's Hospital (US)
  • Riley Hospital for Children (US)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Venue
PEDIATRICS
Publisher
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Published
2004-09-01
Volume
114
Issue
3
Pages
640-644
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
DOI
10.1542/peds.2003-1122-l
OpenAlex
W2103550543
Cited by
87
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (RR00046, M01RR000046, RR00037)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Sexual Differentiation and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunodeficiency and Autoimmune Disorders
Keywords
Turner syndrome, ascertainment bias, incidental diagnosis, phenotypic traits, cardiac defects, renal anomalies, 45,X/46,XX mosaicism, growth hormone therapy, prenatal counseling
MeSH terms
Abnormalities, Multiple, Child, Preschool, Female, Heart Defects, Congenital, Humans, Infant, Karyotyping, Kidney, Mosaicism, Phenotype, Prenatal Diagnosis, Turner Syndrome, Bias

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