Hubbry Logo
Dysmorphic featureDysmorphic featureMain
Open search
Dysmorphic feature
Community hub
Dysmorphic feature
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Dysmorphic feature
Dysmorphic feature
Dysmorphic feature
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Multiple dysmorphic features in a patient with Pitt–Rogers–Danks syndrome: microcephalia, micrognathia and protrusion of the eyeballs

A dysmorphic feature is an abnormal difference in body structure. It can be an isolated finding in an otherwise normal individual, or it can be related to a congenital disorder, genetic syndrome or birth defect. Dysmorphology is the study of dysmorphic features, their origins and proper nomenclature. One of the key challenges in identifying and describing dysmorphic features is the use and understanding of specific terms between different individuals.[1] Clinical geneticists and pediatricians are usually those most closely involved with the identification and description of dysmorphic features, as most are apparent during childhood.

Dysmorphic features can vary from isolated, mild anomalies such as clinodactyly or synophrys to severe congenital anomalies, such as heart defects and holoprosencephaly. In some cases, dysmorphic features are part of a larger clinical picture, sometimes known as a sequence, syndrome or association.[2] Recognizing the patterns of dysmorphic features is an important part of a geneticist's diagnostic process, as many genetic disease present with a common collection of features.[1] There are several commercially available databases that allow clinicians to input their observed features in a patient to generate a differential diagnosis.[1][3] These databases are not infallible, as they require on the clinician to provide their own experience, particularly when the observed clinical features are general. A male child with short stature and hypertelorism could have several different disorders, as these findings are not highly specific.[1] However a finding such as 2,3-toe syndactyly raises the index of suspicion for Smith–Lemli–Opitz syndrome.[4]

Most open source projects that perform phenotype-driven disease or gene prioritization work with the terminology of the Human Phenotype Ontology. This controlled vocabulary can be used to describe the clinical features of a patient and is suitable for machine learning approaches. Publicly accessible databases that labs use to deposit their diagnostic findings, such as ClinVar, can be used to build knowledge graphs to explore the clinical feature space.[5]

Dysmorphic features are invariably present from birth, although some are not immediately apparent upon visual inspection. They can be divided into groups based on their origin, including malformations (abnormal development), disruptions (damage to previously normal tissue), deformations (damage caused by an outside physical force) and dysplasias (abnormal growth or organization within a tissue).[1][2]

Dysmorphology

[edit]

Dysmorphology is the discipline of using dysmorphic features in the diagnostic workup and delineation of syndromic disorders. In the recent years advances in computer vision have also resulted in several deep learning approaches that assist geneticists in the study of the facial gestalt.[6][7][8] Training and test data for clinicians and computer scientists in order to compare the performance of new AIs can be obtained from GestaltMatcher.[citation needed]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dysmorphic feature

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A dysmorphic feature refers to a physical abnormality in body structure, often involving the face or other visible traits, that deviates from typical human morphology and arises from disruptions in developmental processes, such as genetic mutations or environmental factors like teratogen exposure. These features are typically congenital and can range from subtle variations, like widely spaced eyes (), to more pronounced malformations, such as cleft lip or . In medical contexts, they are key indicators of underlying genetic syndromes, distinguishing them from isolated benign traits that may occur normally within certain ethnic or familial groups. Dysmorphic features hold significant diagnostic value in dysmorphology, the branch of clinical genetics focused on identifying and interpreting such abnormalities to uncover associated conditions. They often cluster in patterns that suggest specific syndromes—for instance, epicanthal folds, , and a flat nasal bridge in , or a triangular face and in —enabling clinicians to narrow down potential genetic etiologies and associated risks, such as cardiovascular issues in . Early recognition facilitates targeted , including chromosomal microarray or whole-exome sequencing, and informs prognosis, treatment, and family counseling. Assessment of dysmorphic features requires a systematic by trained professionals, such as clinical geneticists, involving precise measurements (e.g., interpupillary distance, limb ratios) compared to age- and ethnicity-specific norms, alongside qualitative observations of facial gestalt. Tools like facial recognition software (e.g., Face2Gene) and standardized from resources such as Elements of Morphology can aid in objective analysis, though features may evolve with age or be influenced by non-genetic factors. While most children with isolated dysmorphic traits are healthy, a comprehensive evaluation is warranted when multiple features or accompanying symptoms, like growth delays or , are present to rule out syndromic causes.

Definition and Characteristics

Definition

Dysmorphic features refer to unusual physical variations in body structure, particularly atypical traits in the face, limbs, or trunk, that deviate from the norms of the general population or unaffected relatives. Derived from the Greek words dys (disordered or abnormal) and morph (shape or form), these features are central to the discipline of dysmorphology, which systematically studies patterns of human structural defects, including malformations, disruptions, deformations, and dysplasias. The concept of dysmorphology as a formalized branch of clinical emerged in the mid-20th century, pioneered by David W. Smith, a pediatrician who coined the term in 1966 and emphasized the developmental timing and pathogenetic mechanisms underlying congenital anomalies through seminal works like Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation (1970). A critical distinction exists between minor anomalies and major malformations within dysmorphic features. Minor anomalies, such as , are subtle variations occurring in less than 5% of the population, typically without or functional impairment. In contrast, major malformations, like cleft palate, represent substantial structural defects that deviate more markedly from norms and often necessitate medical or surgical intervention. Identification of these features remains subjective, heavily influenced by ethnic diversity and population-specific anatomical norms, requiring careful comparison to standardized references. Minor anomalies occur in up to 20% of newborns, though the presence of three or more is less common (≈3%) and associated with a 10-90% risk of underlying major malformations or genetic syndromes, underscoring their diagnostic value in dysmorphology. While a single minor anomaly is common and usually benign, two or more warrant consideration of syndromic causes, with three or more present in only ≈0.5-3% of newborns but linked to high risk (up to 90%) of associated conditions.

Types and Examples

Dysmorphic features are commonly classified by anatomical region to facilitate systematic evaluation, including craniofacial, limb, and trunk/skeletal areas. Craniofacial features encompass abnormalities in the head and face, such as , defined as an increased distance between the eyes exceeding normal norms, and micrognathia, characterized by an underdeveloped lower jaw leading to a receding . Limb features involve deviations in the extremities, including , a of the fifth at the distal interphalangeal , and , the fusion of two or more digits. Trunk and skeletal features affect the torso and bone structure, such as , an abnormal lateral of the spine, and , a depression of the resulting in a sunken chest appearance. Common minor variants illustrate the spectrum of dysmorphic features, where context determines clinical significance. Epicanthal folds, skin creases extending from the upper eyelid to the , occur in approximately 40% of Asian individuals as a normal ethnic variant but may indicate dysmorphism when atypical in other populations. Sandal gap toes, a widened space between the first and second toes, represent a frequent normal variant in the general population, though exaggerated gaps can signal underlying issues when isolated from other findings. Morphological assessment relies on anthropometric measurements to quantify deviations, such as outer canthal (the horizontal between the lateral angles of the eyes), with normative values varying by age, , and —for instance, adult values range from 95 to 105 mm across populations, with adjustments for pediatric norms decreasing proportionally with age. Differentiation from normal variants hinges on statistical criteria, where a feature is considered dysmorphic if it deviates more than 2 standard deviations from the population for age, , and -matched norms.

Etiology

Genetic Causes

Dysmorphic features often arise from genetic mechanisms that disrupt normal embryonic development, including chromosomal imbalances, single-gene , and alterations in key molecular pathways. These genetic factors lead to structural anomalies in craniofacial, limb, and other body regions by altering , protein function, or epigenetic regulation during critical developmental windows. De novo , identified through next-generation sequencing, represent an important genetic in sporadic cases of dysmorphic features, particularly in neurodevelopmental disorders. These novel variants, not inherited from parents, contribute to approximately 20-40% of such cases in recent studies, highlighting the role of NGS in uncovering non-familial causes. Chromosomal abnormalities, particularly aneuploidies, are a primary genetic cause of dysmorphic features, resulting from gains or losses of entire chromosomes or large segments that affect multiple genes simultaneously. Trisomy 21, or , exemplifies this through the presence of extra material from , which causes characteristic facial flattening, upslanting palpebral fissures, and a protruding tongue due to overexpression of genes involved in craniofacial . Similarly, (45,X ) leads to distinctive dysmorphic traits such as neck webbing and low posterior hairline, stemming from of the and consequent of genes critical for gonadal and somatic development. These aneuploidies account for a substantial proportion of recognizable syndromic dysmorphisms in clinical practice. Single-gene disorders contribute to dysmorphic features through patterns, where mutations in specific genes disrupt targeted developmental processes. Autosomal dominant, recessive, and X-linked patterns are common, often resulting in syndromic presentations with consistent dysmorphic signs. , for instance, is frequently caused by heterozygous gain-of-function mutations in the gene on , which encodes a in the RAS/MAPK signaling pathway; these mutations lead to facial dysmorphisms including ptosis, , and by dysregulating cell proliferation and migration during embryogenesis. Other single-gene examples follow similar inheritance modes, with autosomal dominant forms like those in type 1 causing café-au-lait spots and bony dysplasias, while recessive disorders such as Ellis-van Creveld syndrome involve mutations in EVC genes affecting limb and dental structures. At the molecular level, dysmorphic features emerge from disruptions in developmental gene networks and epigenetic modifications that fine-tune . HOX genes, a family of transcription factors clustered on chromosomes 2, 7, 12, and 17, play a pivotal role in anterior-posterior patterning and limb formation; mutations or deletions in these genes, as seen in synpolydactyly ( mutations) or hand-foot-genital syndrome (HOXA13 mutations), result in limb dysmorphisms like or fusion defects by altering mesenchymal cell differentiation. Epigenetic mechanisms, particularly imprinting defects, also contribute, as in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, where paternal or loss of at the 11p15.5 imprinting center (affecting genes like IGF2 and H19) causes overgrowth-related dysmorphisms such as and facial through aberrant dosage of imprinted growth regulators. Genetic causes underlie a significant proportion of syndromic cases with dysmorphic features, with diagnostic yields varying from 20-50% depending on the cohort and testing approach. Copy number variations (CNVs), submicroscopic deletions or duplications detectable by array (array CGH), are identified in approximately 15-20% of such cases in various studies, often involving developmental genes and contributing to variable dysmorphic phenotypes when not explained by larger chromosomal anomalies. This diagnostic yield underscores the value of genomic testing in uncovering these etiologies.

Environmental and Other Causes

Environmental causes of dysmorphic features arise from teratogenic exposures during vulnerable periods of fetal development, disrupting normal and leading to structural anomalies. Prenatal alcohol consumption is a well-established teratogen that causes fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASDs), with characteristic craniofacial dysmorphisms such as midface , smooth , and thin , particularly when exposure occurs in the first trimester. Similarly, exposure between 20 and 36 days post-fertilization induces thalidomide embryopathy, most notably —a severe limb reduction where hands or feet attach directly to the trunk—along with ear and ocular malformations. Maternal health conditions and nutritional imbalances further contribute to dysmorphic outcomes through indirect teratogenic effects. Infections like in early result in , manifesting as , congenital cataracts, and pigmentary as key dysmorphic and sensory features. Poorly controlled maternal diabetes increases the risk of , characterized by sacral and lower limb , reflecting disrupted caudal embryonic development. Excess vitamin A intake or exposure to its synthetic derivatives, such as , leads to retinoic acid embryopathy, which can produce with midline facial defects like , flat nose, or even in severe cases. Multifactorial etiologies highlight the interplay between genetic predisposition and environmental triggers in dysmorphic conditions. For instance, nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate often follows a multifactorial pattern, where environmental factors like maternal or interact with polygenic risks, yielding sibling recurrence rates of approximately 3-5%. Iatrogenic exposures, including certain medications and , represent preventable causes of dysmorphism. use, particularly sodium in the first trimester, causes fetal valproate featuring facial anomalies such as epicanthal folds, a broad , and shallow , alongside neural tube defects. Prenatal , as seen in atomic bomb survivors or Chernobyl-affected populations, is linked to and associated craniofacial growth deficiencies due to radiosensitive neural damage.

Clinical Evaluation

History and Examination

The clinical evaluation of dysmorphic features begins with a detailed history to identify potential genetic or environmental contributors. Family history should span at least three generations, inquiring about consanguinity, recurrent miscarriages, congenital anomalies, intellectual disability, neurodevelopmental delays, and unexplained infant deaths, as these patterns may indicate hereditary syndromes. Prenatal history is equally critical, focusing on maternal exposures such as infections (e.g., TORCH complex), medications, alcohol or drug use, smoking, and complications like intrauterine growth restriction or abnormal amniotic fluid volume, which can influence fetal development and manifest as dysmorphic traits. Physical examination employs a systematic head-to-toe approach to detect both major and minor anomalies, with anthropometric measurements compared to age- and sex-specific norms from standardized growth charts. Key assessments include head circumference (to identify or ), height, weight, arm span, limb lengths, and facial proportions such as interpupillary distance; for instance, measurements are plotted using or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention references to evaluate deviations. Documentation of minor anomalies—subtle variations occurring in less than 4% of the population without functional impairment, such as epicanthal folds, , , or single palmar creases—is facilitated by dysmorphology checklists that categorize features across regions like the face (e.g., , ptosis), ears (e.g., overfolded helices), hands (e.g., short fifth metacarpal), and feet (e.g., sandal gap between first and second toes). These checklists, such as those outlining 20 or more common traits, aid in and comprehensive recording. Age-specific considerations are essential, as dysmorphic features may evolve over time. In neonates, prominent signs include loose nuchal (indicative of syndromes like Noonan or Turner), preauricular tags, or asymmetric crying facies, often assessed alongside birth parameters like weight extremes. In older children, features such as facial coarsening or evolving craniofacial proportions (e.g., in ) become more apparent, requiring longitudinal comparison to detect subtle progressions that were less evident earlier. The presence of three or more minor anomalies raises suspicion for an underlying , warranting further evaluation, as this threshold correlates with a high , with approximately 90% of such infants having an associated major malformation or genetic . While no universal scoring system exists, counting anomalies via checklists helps quantify and guide prioritization.

Diagnostic Methods

Diagnosis of dysmorphic features often involves advanced laboratory and imaging techniques to identify underlying genetic, structural, or metabolic causes following initial clinical assessment. plays a central role, with chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) recommended as a first-tier test for individuals with dysmorphic features and multiple congenital anomalies, as it identifies copy number variants (CNVs), including aneuploidies, with a diagnostic yield of 10-20%. Karyotyping may be used in specific cases to detect large chromosomal abnormalities such as those associated with dysmorphic syndromes like . CMA represents a 15-20% increase in diagnostic yield over conventional karyotyping alone. For suspected single-gene disorders, next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels or whole-exome sequencing are employed, providing an additional diagnostic yield of approximately 14% in cases where CMA is negative. Imaging modalities complement genetic evaluation by revealing associated internal anomalies. Prenatal or postnatal is commonly used to detect visceral malformations, such as cardiac or renal defects, that may accompany dysmorphic features. (MRI) is particularly valuable for assessing brain anomalies linked to facial dysmorphism, such as in , where it confirms the degree of division failure and guides prognosis. Biochemical assays are indicated when are suspected as contributors to dysmorphic presentations. Metabolic screening, including plasma amino acid analysis, acylcarnitine profiles, and testing, helps identify disorders like or other organic acidurias that can manifest with dysmorphic features. For specific conditions such as Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome, measurement of plasma sterols, particularly elevated levels, confirms the diagnosis biochemically. The overall diagnostic yield of in cases involving multiple anomalies and dysmorphic features ranges from 40-50% when combining CMA and NGS approaches, facilitating targeted management. Dysmorphology databases, such as POSSUM (Pictures of Standard Syndromes and Undiagnosed Malformations), aid in by matching clinical features to known syndromes, enhancing diagnostic efficiency.

Associated Conditions

Genetic Syndromes

Genetic syndromes are conditions resulting from chromosomal or single-gene abnormalities that often present with clusters of dysmorphic features alongside systemic involvement, aiding in for . , caused by 21, exemplifies a common genetic syndrome with characteristic dysmorphic features including upslanting palpebral fissures, on the iris, and a . The incidence of Down syndrome is approximately 1 in 700 live births. Fragile X syndrome, resulting from mutations in the FMR1 gene on the , features a long narrow face and prominent ears as prominent dysmorphic traits, particularly evident post-puberty. , frequently due to mutations in the NIPBL gene, is associated with synophrys (confluent eyebrows), long eyelashes, and limb reduction defects, contributing to its distinctive facial and skeletal profile. The presence of three or more minor dysmorphic anomalies occurs in approximately 0.5% of newborns and is associated with a major malformation in about 90% of cases, which increases suspicion for an underlying genetic syndrome. Ethnic variations must be considered in dysmorphology evaluations, as normal traits such as a wider are more prevalent in African populations, potentially influencing the interpretation of syndromic features.

Non-Syndromic Presentations

Non-syndromic presentations of dysmorphic features refer to physical anomalies that appear in isolation, without the constellation of multiple traits characteristic of a defined genetic . These cases often arise from multifactorial influences, including genetic predispositions and environmental factors, and typically do not follow a recognizable of or systemic involvement. In , identifying such isolated features requires careful differentiation from syndromic conditions to avoid unnecessary testing while recognizing potential subtle associations. Isolated anomalies, such as cleft lip or , exemplify non-syndromic dysmorphic features. The incidence of isolated cleft lip, without accompanying palate involvement or other malformations, ranges from approximately 1 in 4,000 to 1 in 10,000 live births, varying by geographic and ethnic factors. Similarly, , characterized by extra digits on the hands or feet, occurs in about 1 to 3.6 per 1,000 live births, with higher rates in certain populations such as those of African descent. These anomalies are often multifactorial in , involving interactions between multiple low-penetrance genetic variants and environmental exposures, and carry a low recurrence risk in siblings, typically 2-5% for non-syndromic cleft lip and less than 6% for isolated . Idiopathic dysmorphism encompasses cases where features are either benign normal variations misperceived as abnormal or transient neonatal changes that resolve spontaneously. For instance, molding due to pressure can result in temporary asymmetry or positional in newborns, which generally corrects within the first few weeks to months as the bones remodel. Such transient features, including mild facial puffiness or ear folding, are common and do not indicate , distinguishing them from persistent dysmorphic traits. Even in apparently isolated presentations, dysmorphic features warrant evaluation for potential underlying issues, as they may signal subtle genetic or developmental concerns. For example, infants with isolated cleft lip have an approximately 11% risk of associated congenital anomalies, which could include elements suggestive of an unrecognized . Population-based studies indicate that up to 15% of healthy newborns exhibit one minor dysmorphic trait, such as a single low-set or , without clinical significance or increased risk of major malformations. However, the presence of two or more minor traits elevates the likelihood of an underlying chromosomal abnormality to about 10%, emphasizing the need for targeted assessment.

Clinical Implications

Management Approaches

Management of dysmorphic features requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach involving specialists such as clinical geneticists, pediatricians, surgeons, otolaryngologists, speech-language pathologists, and therapists to address both underlying etiologies and associated complications. This team-based strategy ensures comprehensive evaluation and tailored interventions, particularly for genetic syndromes presenting with craniofacial anomalies. For instance, in conditions like rare skeletal disorders, a specialized center coordinates care with , surgical planning, and rehabilitative services to optimize outcomes. Targeted interventions focus on correcting structural abnormalities and mitigating recurrence risks through genetic mechanisms. Surgical options, such as cleft palate repair for orofacial clefting or for , aim to alleviate airway obstruction and improve function, often performed by plastic or maxillofacial surgeons as part of early postnatal care. is integral, providing families with information on inheritance patterns; for autosomal recessive disorders, the recurrence risk in subsequent pregnancies is 25%. Supportive care emphasizes ongoing monitoring and holistic development to address secondary effects of dysmorphic features. Regular growth assessments using standardized charts help detect deviations early, while developmental evaluations guide interventions like speech therapy for micrognathia-related feeding or articulation issues. Psychological support, including counseling for concerns in older children with visible anomalies, is provided within multidisciplinary frameworks to foster emotional and family . Preventive measures target risk reduction during preconception and . Prenatal screening, such as non-invasive (NIPT) using cell-free DNA for high-risk cases, enables early detection of chromosomal anomalies associated with dysmorphic features, allowing informed decision-making, with diagnostic confirmation via invasive procedures like if indicated. on avoiding teratogens, including alcohol, , and certain medications, is recommended to minimize environmental contributions to congenital anomalies like orofacial clefts.

Prognosis and Outcomes

Isolated dysmorphic features, such as minor variations in facial morphology or limb structure without associated anomalies, generally carry an excellent prognosis, with no significant impact on lifespan or overall function in the vast majority of cases. These features are often benign variants of normal development and do not require intervention beyond routine monitoring. In syndromic cases where dysmorphic features are part of a broader genetic condition, prognosis varies widely depending on the underlying etiology. For instance, individuals with (trisomy 21) have a median survival of around 60 years with modern medical care as of 2025, reflecting improvements in managing comorbidities like congenital heart defects and infections. In contrast, severe chromosomal disorders such as trisomy 13 or are associated with markedly reduced survival, with only 5-15% of affected infants surviving beyond the first year of life due to profound multi-organ involvement; however, recent advances including 2025 guidelines for individualized care have increased long-term survival, with approximately 8-9% reaching 10 years of age. Dysmorphic features in syndromic contexts often correlate with increased morbidity from associated complications, including congenital anomalies that affect multiple systems. Cardiac defects, for example, occur in 40-50% of individuals with common dysmorphic syndromes like , contributing to higher rates of early interventions and long-term cardiovascular monitoring. Advances in multidisciplinary care have substantially improved and functional outcomes for those with dysmorphic features linked to specific anomalies. In cases of cleft lip and/or , a common dysmorphic presentation, approximately 80-90% of children achieve normal or near-normal speech development following timely surgical and therapeutic interventions by age 10. These improvements underscore the role of early and supportive in mitigating long-term impacts.

References

  1. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2012/1101/p826.html
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2675338/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11120268/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC117854/
  5. https://www.advancesinpediatrics.org/article/S0065-3101(15)00012-2/fulltext
  6. https://genetics.pediatrics.med.ufl.edu/teaching-resources/facial-dysmorphology/
  7. https://publications.aap.org/neoreviews/article/18/9/e522/91848/Contemporary-Evaluation-of-the-Neonate-with
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4707958/
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/dysmorphic-feature
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4456691/
  11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37492214/
  12. https://radiopaedia.org/articles/sandal-gap-deformity?lang=us
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6408655/
  14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11879080/
  15. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15885-1
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3991414/
  17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554621/
  18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1124/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC379142/
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096719213003600
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11100972_Limb_malformations_and_the_human_HOX_genes
  22. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1394/
  23. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54347-z
  24. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/156/1/e2025072219/202230/Genetic-Evaluation-of-the-Child-With-Intellectual
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6583660/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4737249/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2095420/
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3939279/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC506789/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2909851/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5555794/
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4233949/
  33. https://www.ohsu.edu/sites/default/files/2019-02/Dysmorphology%20Exam%2012.30.16.pdf
  34. https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/photo-gallery/dysmorphology.html
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8534483/
  36. https://www.bcbsm.com/amslibs/content/dam/public/mpr/mprsearch/pdf/2003173.pdf
  37. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19274-6
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323913805000198
  39. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560861/
  40. https://www.ajnr.org/content/37/3/536
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096719224008850
  42. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/949125-overview
  43. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266493
  44. https://library.indianastate.edu/c.php?g=561329&p=4465971
  45. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1104/
  46. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/down-syndrome/
  47. https://eyewiki.org/Trisomy_21/Down_Syndrome
  48. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526016/
  49. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/fragile-x-syndrome/
  50. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/cornelia-de-lange-syndrome/
  51. https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/cornelia-de-lange-syndrome/
  52. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/58402
  53. https://obgynkey.com/fetal-anomalies-overview/
  54. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=ume-research-papers
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7606870/
  56. https://www.orpha.net/en/disease/detail/199302
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6232527/
  58. https://publications.aap.org/neoreviews/article/25/12/e793/199976/Recurrence-Risks-in-Congenital-Anomalies-A
  59. https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2431-13-26
  60. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/Cleft-Craniofacial/Pages/Positional-Skull-Deformities-and-Torticollis.aspx
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2825080/
  62. https://publications.aap.org/neoreviews/article/4/4/e99/86998/The-Importance-of-Minor-Anomalies-in-the
  63. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf02424523
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8016795/
  65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK562213/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7933797/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6486016/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10287552/
  69. https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/family-resources-education/700childrens/2021/07/down-syndrome-life-expectancy
  70. https://ndss.org/myths-truths
  71. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/developmental-disabilities/Pages/new-guidelines-for-babies-with-trisomy-13-and-trisomy-18-aap-policy-explained.aspx
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4898882/
  73. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/156/2/e2025072719/202649/Guidance-for-Caring-for-Infants-and-Children-With
  74. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2838606
  75. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.059706
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7255536/
  77. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25112165/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.