Cautionary messages should be aimed at young children, older adults, and users of home gyms. Those who train with weights should be instructed in the proper use of weight equipment.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe 22q11.2 deletion syndrome is the most common microdeletion syndrome in livebirths, but data regarding its incidence in other populations is limited and also include ascertainment bias. This study was designed to determine the incidence of the 22q11.2 deletion in miscarriage samples sent for clinical molecular cytogenetic testing.ResultsTwenty-six thousand one hundred one fresh product of conception (POC) samples were sent to a CLIA- certified, CAP-accredited laboratory from April 2010–-May 2016 for molecular cytogenetic miscarriage testing using a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based microarray platform. A retrospective review determined the incidence of the 22q11.2 deletion in this sample set. Fetal results were obtained in 22,451 (86%) cases, of which, 15 (0.07%) had a microdeletion in the 22q11.2 region (incidence, 1/1497). Of those, 12 (80%) cases were found in samples that were normal at the resolution of traditional karyotyping (i.e., had no chromosome abnormalities above 10 Mb in size) and three (20%) cases had additional findings (Trisomy 15, Trisomy 16, XXY). Ten (67%) cases with a 22q11.2 deletion had the common ~3 Mb deletion; the remaining 5 cases had deletions ranging in size from 0.65 to 1.5 Mb. A majority (12/15) of cases had a deletion on the maternally inherited chromosome. No significant relationship between maternal age and presence of a fetal 22q11.2 deletion was observed.ConclusionsThe observed incidence of 1/1497 for the 22q11.2 deletion in miscarriage samples is higher than the reported general population prevalence (1/4000–1/6000). Further research is needed to determine whether the 22q11.2 deletion is a causal factor for miscarriage.

Profiler Plus is a general-purpose "natural language" analysis application implemented in Common Lisp. We discuss its capabilities in the context of two points of view which are brought together here for the first time: that of Social Science Automation which commissioned the product and programmed the rules which drive it; and that of Ravenbrook which, without ever wholly understanding what it did, successfully implemented it.