# Talk:Tetrasomy X

Should this page be named Tetrasomy X instead of "48, XXXX" since it is more commonly referred to as the former and also, how would you actually pronounce Forty-eight comma space ex ex ex ex? 198.6.46.11 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of intelligence, clinical findings suggest that IQ decreases 10 to 15 points per extra X chromosome. Consequently, the average IQ scores of tetrasomy X patients are between 70 and 80.
This has been uncited in the articles for more than two years now. This can be interpreted to argue that women are less intelligent than men. I would just fix that issue except that I'm not confident that any of the rest of this is true. On top of all that, there are only 60 tetrasomy X cases on record and fewer pentasomy X. If someone can come back with a citation, please add this back. Until then, lets leave this out. —mako๛ 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The way it's put in the article was pretty inaccurate, but this is generally accepted as the 'rule of thumb' that an extra X or Y chromosome will result in an IQ drop of somewhere around 10 points. I do have a citation, though I'm not sure how to cite it. Sticking this back in. Stealthy (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"The majority have also been reported as being longer and taller." Than what? -Uusijani (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I requested that this page be partially protected because of multiple abusive IPs changing the article with nonsense information randomly. Cocoaguy  ここがいい 05:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A picture of a child who does not have Tetrasomy X but has a cleft lip is the main picture on the tetrasomy X page? What sense does that make? Also, what is the source on the cleft lip? Original research I know, but I've been aware of and following diagnoses of Tetrasomy X for more than a decade and I have never heard of anyone having a cleft lip. Is this vandalism residue? 198.6.33.13 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the image is misplaced on this article and have removed it. Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

We should add the following sentence:
"In terms of intelligence, clinical findings suggest that IQ decreases 10 to 15 points per extra X chromosome. Consequently, the average IQ scores of tetrasomy X patients are between 70 and 80."
I have a source for that claim, is trustworthy since is from a foundation dedicated to chromosome disorders, this is the source:
https://www.rarechromo.org/media/information/Chromosome_X/Tetrasomy_X%20FTNW.pdf TheGreatJack (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done.  That's a misrepresentation of the source.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
That's literally what's said in the source, could you tell what's exactly a "misrepresentation"?, we could always add the part: "However, this may actually paint too negative a picture, as those with little or no learning difficulty may never come to the attention of doctors or be diagnosed." if that's your concern(The IQ part is true or atleast not refuted in the source, is just that can make some confusion, but if we clarify that should be ok anyway).
Still  Not done.  It's a misrepresentation because the source makes no mention of such "clinical findings", calling it merely a "rule of thumb" instead.  Moreover, as you even point out, the source goes on to question this rule of thumb due to biased sampling.  More importantly though, this is a pamphlet from a charitable organization, and I'm not sure if we should use it as a WP:MEDRS-compliant source.  I should have mentioned that originally, and I apologize for missing it, but I wasn't thinking along those line when I took a quick look and saw what I felt to be the misrepresentation I mentioned above.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tetrasomy X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 03:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello I will be reviewing this article. As usual, comments will be made soon. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 03:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


### General comments
All claims are cited
All images are sourced properly
It would be better if this article had more images, but the ones currently are minimally sufficient for GA.
Earwig copyvio report came back clean.

This article meets all basic criteria, so I will be promoting it. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 04:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

article should have 1)treatment section per[1], 2) also lede could be better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)