A J Agopian1, Jane A Evans2, Philip J Lupo3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Biochemistry and Medical Genetics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Section of Hematology-Oncology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 20 to 30% of infants with birth defects have two or more birth defects. Among these infants with multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), co-occurring anomalies may represent either chance (i.e., unrelated etiologies) or pathogenically associated patterns of anomalies. While some MCA patterns have been recognized and described (e.g., known syndromes), others have not been identified or characterized. Elucidating these patterns may result in a better understanding of the etiologies of these MCAs. METHODS: This article reviews the literature with regard to analytic methods that have been used to evaluate patterns of MCAs, in particular those using birth defect registry data. RESULTS: A popular method for MCA assessment involves a comparison of the observed to expected ratio for a given combination of MCAs, or one of several modified versions of this comparison. Other methods include use of numerical taxonomy or other clustering techniques, multiple regression analysis, and log-linear analysis. Advantages and disadvantages of these approaches, as well as specific applications, were outlined. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of multiple analytic approaches, relatively few MCA combinations have been assessed. The availability of large birth defects registries and computing resources that allow for automated, big data strategies for prioritizing MCA patterns may provide for new avenues for better understanding co-occurrence of birth defects. Thus, the selection of an analytic approach may depend on several considerations. Birth Defects Research 110:5-11, 2018.
BACKGROUND: It is estimated that 20 to 30% of infants with birth defects have two or more birth defects. Among these infants with multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), co-occurring anomalies may represent either chance (i.e., unrelated etiologies) or pathogenically associated patterns of anomalies. While some MCA patterns have been recognized and described (e.g., known syndromes), others have not been identified or characterized. Elucidating these patterns may result in a better understanding of the etiologies of these MCAs. METHODS: This article reviews the literature with regard to analytic methods that have been used to evaluate patterns of MCAs, in particular those using birth defect registry data. RESULTS: A popular method for MCA assessment involves a comparison of the observed to expected ratio for a given combination of MCAs, or one of several modified versions of this comparison. Other methods include use of numerical taxonomy or other clustering techniques, multiple regression analysis, and log-linear analysis. Advantages and disadvantages of these approaches, as well as specific applications, were outlined. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of multiple analytic approaches, relatively few MCA combinations have been assessed. The availability of large birth defects registries and computing resources that allow for automated, big data strategies for prioritizing MCA patterns may provide for new avenues for better understanding co-occurrence of birth defects. Thus, the selection of an analytic approach may depend on several considerations. Birth Defects Research 110:5-11, 2018.
Authors: Renata H Benjamin; Xiao Yu; Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez; Han Chen; Laura E Mitchell; Peter H Langlois; Mark A Canfield; Michael D Swartz; Angela E Scheuerle; Daryl A Scott; Hope Northrup; Christian P Schaaf; Joseph W Ray; Scott D McLean; Philip J Lupo; A J Agopian Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez; Renata H Benjamin; Laura E Mitchell; Peter H Langlois; Mark A Canfield; Michael D Swartz; Angela E Scheuerle; Daryl A Scott; Hope Northrup; Christian P Schaaf; Joseph W Ray; Scott D McLean; Han Chen; Philip J Lupo; A J Agopian Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2021-04-28
Authors: Katherine L Ludorf; Renata H Benjamin; Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez; Scott D McLean; Hope Northrup; Laura E Mitchell; Peter H Langlois; Mark A Canfield; Angela E Scheuerle; Daryl A Scott; Christian P Schaaf; Joseph W Ray; Omobola Oluwafemi; Han Chen; Michael D Swartz; Philip J Lupo; A J Agopian Journal: J Pediatr Urol Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 1.830
Authors: Guoliang Chai; Emmanuelle Szenker-Ravi; Changuk Chung; Zhen Li; Lu Wang; Muznah Khatoo; Trevor Marshall; Nan Jiang; Xiaoxu Yang; Jennifer McEvoy-Venneri; Valentina Stanley; Paula Anzenberg; Nhi Lang; Vanessa Wazny; Jia Yu; David M Virshup; Rie Nygaard; Filippo Mancia; Rijad Merdzanic; Maria B P Toralles; Paula M L Pitanga; Ratna D Puri; Rebecca Hernan; Wendy K Chung; Aida M Bertoli-Avella; Nouriya Al-Sannaa; Maha S Zaki; Karl Willert; Bruno Reversade; Joseph G Gleeson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Meredith M Howley; Eva Williford; A J Agopian; Angela E Lin; Lorenzo D Botto; Christopher M Cunniff; Paul A Romitti; Eirini Nestoridi; Marilyn L Browne Journal: Birth Defects Res Date: 2022-03-11 Impact factor: 2.661
Authors: Melissa A Richard; Jenil Patel; Renata H Benjamin; Emine Bircan; Stephen J Canon; Lisa K Marengo; Mark A Canfield; A J Agopian; Philip J Lupo; Wendy N Nembhard Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Philip J Lupo; A J Agopian; Renata H Benjamin; Angela E Scheuerle; Daryl A Scott; Maria Luisa Navarro Sanchez; Peter H Langlois; Mark A Canfield; Hope Northrup; Christian P Schaaf; Joseph W Ray; Scott D McLean; Han Chen; Michael D Swartz Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.953