Talk:Trisomy X

Copyedit
This article lacks a flow when reading. Many sentences are too short and could be combined. For example, two sentences in the second line of the article could be combined to read "Those affected by Triple X Syndrome are often taller than average, but there are typically no other physical abnormalities." There are a few missing commas throughout the article. A sentence under "Psychological" should read "On average, those affected have IQs that are 20 points lower than normal." Ddesalvo2016 (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Drew DeSalvo

Protection
Of the last 250 edits to this page at least 170 were vandalism and its correction. People are obviously not finding the topic they are looking for. Have protected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2017
First paragraph, third sentence: Change "Usually there is no other physical differences" to "Usually there are no other physical differences" Shbert (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thankyou for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  14:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

US of A irrelevant data
In what way does the bit under the paragraph " Epidemiology" mentioning that; " On average, five to ten girls with triple X syndrome are born in the United States each day." contribute to clarification of the epidemiological aspect, unless that rate is somehow disproportional to the average ? ( which, in case, isn't mentioned ) I suggest either to delete that sentence or add numbers covering more globally. Flight714 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2018
49.14.132.172 (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dolotta (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: 49,XXXXX is MOVED to Pentasomy X, while there is NO CONSENSUS to move Triple X syndrome (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

– As it stands, the articles regarding polysomy X conditions are inconsistently named. The ideal protocol for all three major polysomy X conditions would be naming them [number]somy X, as is common for aneuploidies not better known by another name -- that is, the pages would be Trisomy, Tetrasomy, and Pentasomy X. The present article titles are Triple X syndrome, Tetrasomy X, and 49,XXXXX.
 * Triple X syndrome → Trisomy X
 * 49,XXXXX → Pentasomy X

While all three conditions are known by various names, and Trisomy X in particular has a genuine claim to 'Triple X syndrome' as an equally or more accessible name, the current disparity in names is a detriment to the user-friendliness and accessibility of all three articles. I have recommended use of the '[number]somy X' format, but a 47,XXX/48,XXXX/49,XXXXX format is also possible (though would be less accessible), or a formal syndrome name if a well-known one happened to exist for any of the relevant disorders. However, the present situation is far from optimal. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support 49,XXXXX → Pentasomy X. Oppose Triple X syndrome → Trisomy X, as I think "Triple X syndrome" is the more common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In practice, most sources are practically split between 'triple X syndrome' and 'trisomy X' -- a normal Google search is 50,500 "triple x syndrome" and 50,800 "trisomy x", while a Google Scholar search is 1,450 and 1,730. Mayo Clinic and the National Institute for Health use 'triple X syndrome', AXYS (the Association for X and Y Chromosome Disorders) and the National Organization for World Diseases use 'trisomy X', Unique (the Rare Chromosomal Disorders Foundation) uses both. Unique explicitly recommends parents use 'trisomy X' while searching to avoid the potential of pornographic results, and it's plausible the pornographic associations of 'XXX' are related to the article's pre-protection vandalism problem. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support all per WP:CONSISTENCY; while it's seldom a strong argument, it is worthwhile pursuing all other things being equal, and here they apparently are. No such user (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll alert WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Looking at the sources, it appears that "Triple X syndrome" is the WP:Common name for this topic (Trisomy X). This article could continue with that name while renaming the other article "Pentasomy X." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Support all per No such user — bieχχ (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * support 49,XXXXX → Pentasomy X(Triple X syndrome is fine as is...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support WHO calls it "trimsomy X" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support both, although I acknowledge the triple X/trisomy X choice is marginal either way. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Per my, Rreagan007 and Ozzie10aaaa's comment above, I support renaming "49,XXXXX" to "Pentasomy X," but I oppose moving "Triple X syndrome" to "Trisomy X." Not a strong oppose, though. I could be fine with the article being titled "Trisomy X." I wonder how Vaticidalprophet did the Google searches. See WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:GOOGLETEST (for example, its WP:SET section). From what I've seen of the literature, "Trisomy X" is more often treated as the secondary name, such as in the source Ozzie10aaaa linked to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major article edits
Once the renaming debate is over, I plan to make some major edits to this page and the other pages regarding polysomy X syndromes for quality purposes. This article isn't bad, per se, but I'd argue it's a lot closer to the Start than B classification, and most sections can be massively expanded or revamped. I'd WP:BEBOLD and dive into it after the move, but I just want to make sure there isn't anyone who's particularly married to any short/undersourced sections or has their own plans to improve this and related articles. Also, given its status as a semi-protected article that previously saw extensive vandalism due to the name's connotations, I figured I'd leave a statement on the talk page so nobody gets surprised when the edit history reveals substantial changes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018
37.106.86.121 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2018
2405:204:A40C:3232:0:0:886:30A5 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2021
Please add a remark on autism like features in triple X syndrome, also in adults: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.8[Opens in a new window] to the references on psychological problems. DrTripleXsyndrome (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you for the reference, which is a new one to me. However, this edit may be challenged, as it's to a primary source rather than a literature review -- see our sourcing guidelines for medical articles. I'm planning to do a significant expansion of this article soon (as I recently did to tetrasomy X), so some of the autism-related information is likely to end up being moved around or cited to different places. Vaticidalprophet 16:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 09:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Triple X syndrome → Trisomy X – Three years ago now, this (as bundled with the pentasomy X move) closed as no consensus. I think it's time to revisit the topic again, considering recent work on these articles, the longstanding name consistency for the other disorders, and the nuances of WP:COMMONNAME.

The matter of "what's the single most common name for this disorder?" (which is a slightly different thing to the COMMONNAME policy, which explicitly discusses both ambiguity and contexts where a less common name is appropriate) is ambiguous, but points overall to trisomy X. NORD, Orphanet, and AXYS use "trisomy X". Mayo, Medline, and Cleveland use "triple X syndrome". Unique uses both. My consistent impression is that patient organizations have a strong preference away from 'triple X syndrome', and this is reflected in much of the literature, which for sex chromosome aneuploidies is intertwined enough with those organizations that it's difficult to draw a fine line. The publications of the researchers most preeminent in this field trend towards trisomy X, see e.g. Tartaglia (random papers drawn from that sample: 1, 2). Trisomy X is the term used by the eXtraordinarY Kids Program, one of the major evaluation and treatment programs for sex chromosome aneuploidies. Overall, although "triple X syndrome" has nontrivial use, the preference in recent years and amongst those who work directly in this field is away from it and towards "trisomy X".

In addition, there's the consistency argument. Tetrasomy X and pentasomy X have been at the polysomy titles for four and three years respectively without issue, and standardizing the set by having all three in the same place can only be a positive. There's also an argument for conciseness here (two words over three).

Overall, I think our article policies point strongly in the direction that "trisomy X" is the preferable name. It's the preference amongst patient and support organizations, at worst equal to the current title on the grand scale, and consistent with our other usage. It's also, well, a much less awkward phrasing, which doesn't hurt. Vaticidalprophet 06:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * comment generally speaking Vaticidalprophet makes a good point above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The AXYS is titled "About 47,XXX (Trisomy X)" and uses 47,XXX more than it does Trisomy X. GARD uses "47 XXX syndrome". Searching PubMed article titles (trisomy x, triple x, 47,XXX) produces significantly more papers for the latter. (Btw, Pubmed ignores the "," or "-" in a name, so that doesn't affect the results). Searching the whole text (removing [ti] ) similarly shows a strong preference for the latter, though it is possible some are referring to the karyotype rather than talking about the syndrome. It seems to be quite a mess. For example this paper can't make its mind up which of the three terms to use, and one wonders if its three authors couldn't agree and just rolled some dice each time. This paper says "Trisomy X, otherwise known as 47,XXX" but then consistently uses 47,XXX afterwards. You mention Tartaglia but their profile includes just one paper with "Trisomy X" in the title in the last 10 years, and one with "Triple X" in the last 10 years. The former consistently refers to "trisomy X syndrome", which they abbreviate TXS, rather than just "Trisomy X". The latter interchangeably says "females with 47,XXX" and "females with Triple X", and adds "syndrome" to that half the time. When you say patient organizations dislike 'triple X syndrome', can you link to sources for this? Do you have explicit evidence of a shift, such as perhaps old versions of a website on Archive.org or editions of a book using one term and newer versions using another. I appreciate the desire to avoid the porn association, but perhaps "trisomy x" hasn't caught on because "trisomy" is such an opaque jargon term. -- Colin°Talk 17:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I support moving this page to another name. I don't have a strong preference between Trisomy X, Trisomy X syndrome, or 47,XXX.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Trisomy X, oppose 47,XXX as I feel that is not an intuitive name and less recognizable. (t · c)  buidhe  03:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rreagan007, to be honest, the numbers in the ngram are so tiny, that I think you are just seeing noise. The British English corpus shows both terms equal, and the US one only shows a 3x difference, but I don't know how many words extra that is. It could be one book chapter or one or two papers. To give you an example, PubMed only showed 4 papers published in 2020 with one term in the title and 2 papers with the other term. We are at the level of tossing a coin three times and trying to conclude if it is fair. -- Colin°Talk 08:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Ajpolino (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. And the recent-years n-gram stats should be discounted as heavily influenced by Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Some1 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox rewrite
This article gets somewhat more attention than the unwatched ones I've been sandbox rewriting, so I'm leaving a talk page note for transparency, so people who pay attention to the article can see what I'm doing before it goes into mainspace, and to allow people to raise any concerns they have as I go along. I'm currently rewriting this article at User:Vaticidalprophet/Trisomy X, as I previously did with tetrasomy X (now a GA undergoing pre-FAC peer review) and pentasomy X (now finishing up GAN). I'd estimate at the time of this message I'm about one-eighth through one-tenth of the way through. I prefer to work in sandboxes because my style for radical rewrites is too messy (leaving stuff half-finished for extended periods, linking stuff to refer to later, etc) to be mainspace-friendly. Feel free to take a look. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 23:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the mainspace version now. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo caption
We propose that we write Two girls and a young woman with trisomy X, because this is a formal context, and we consider it pejorative to be calling a mature adult a "girl" here. Elizium23 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah I also thought the phrasing of the caption was a little off  Draco phyllum  06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily mind that compromise, though I think it a little clunky. It's better than 'females'. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"Female/girl/woman" wording
Pinging and. Every possible rendition of "female", "girl", and "women" in different parts of the lead has been litigated quite extensively since the period the article's been brought to FAC, and I suspect it needs fuller discussion than the current pattern of undiscussed changes. The prior discussion on the infobox caption led to the conclusion "girls and women" was an acceptable wording, although no one's changed it to that yet. The alt text is still "females", which I think is pretty clunky and should be standardized to the caption. IMO, "female" is the correct phrasing for the first sentence of the lead, even though it's inappropriate for the caption/alt text (IMO, "female" > "females"). This is a medical article, and it's standard practice for disorders that affect one sex to refer to patients as "male" or "female" (rather than "men" or "women") in at least the very opening when the condition is a congenital one that affects patients over the entire lifespan, and so the adult implications of "man/woman" are inappropriate. See e.g. Turner syndrome, Tetrasomy X, Pentasomy X. I think at any rate these disputes at least need to be resolved, though. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 16:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping. I'm a layperson, but I find "a female" to be insulting and objectifying, whereas "a female patient", where "female" is an adjective rather than a noun, to be perfectly normal. The age issue can be circumvented by writing "girls or women", as is occasionally done elsewhere in the article. I'm ready to convinced otherwise though if this is standard for medical articles; do we have a MOS on this?  Sandstein   17:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDMOS covers medical matters broadly. It doesn't mention this specific matter, which is more de facto practice than de jure MOS-holy-writ (inasmuch as the MOS is... etc, etc), but it does disavow the "female patient" wording you propose -- "patients/cases" language is cautioned against where possible. I find the consistency between similar articles persuasive; in addition to the use in Turner's/tetra/penta X, the equivalent wording of "where a male has" is seen in Klinefelter syndrome, XYY syndrome, and related disorders. I do think it's a wording that shouldn't be overused, because it's certainly a clinical one, but medical articles can handle a degree of clinical wording. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 17:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Declinicalize?
Hey hey I keep noticing you “declinicalizing” the text can you explain further in depth why?CycoMa (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes of course. The article is currently being weighed against the featured article criteria at Featured_article_candidates. One of the reviewers there expressed concern that the article "seems to be written for clinicians..." and that the "prose needs some polishing." So I'm giving it another readthrough and attempting to (1) make it a bit more accessible to those without backgrounds in medicine (e.g. reducing the use of words like "phenotype", "presentation", referring to people as "cases", et al.), and (2) spruce up the prose a bit by trimming extraneous words and hopefully improving flow (e.g. removing repeated sentences, trimming filler words that don't contribute to sentences' meaning)... maybe "de-clinicalize" was not the best made-up word for the edit summary...
 * Two reviewers had concerns about some of the rarer sources in the article as well, so once I finish the prose cleanup, I'll loop back to take a look at their concerns there. Sadly, Vaticidalprophet, who did much of the heavy lifting updating this article, has marked "semi-retired" on his userpage, so I fear he may not have time to address reviewers' concerns.
 * If you have specific questions, concerns, et al. I'm happy to chat about it. Also you're welcome to participate in the WP:FAC process at the page I linked above. There are some instructions at the top of this page if you haven't participated before (I know I've seen your username around, but I can't remember where. So no offense meant if you're already well-versed in the process). Thanks for checking in! I hope all is well on your end. Happy to hear your thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it actually a problem for a primarily medical article to sound a bit... medical? Seems to come with the turf to an extent. I can probably understand where it's just alterations in language, but changes like e.g. "a karyotype test"-->"testing" IMO seem to harm the actual specificity/accuracy of the text. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well sure, but it's not a binary question of whether the article sounds medical. Rather it's a question of degree. As to any specific change, I claim no exquisite mastery of English prose, I'm just trying to make this article clear. If you have questions about a change I'm happy to discuss my thinking. If you feel it's not an improvement you can just change it back with an edit summary to that effect. I won't be offended. Ajpolino (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On closer look the changes mostly seem fine, I think my view of them was a bit soured by that one example. I've reverted that but left the rest of it as is. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

A closer look at primary sources used here
Hi all, per some comments at the current FAC, I'm taking a closer look at the use of primary sources in the article. The goal is to make this article as reliable as possible by using the highest quality, most recent sources we can. I've trimmed a few unneeded primary sources already, and may end up trimming a few more as I go through, but the less straightforward ones I'll post here as a reminder to myself to return to, and as an invitation for anyone else to share thoughts. Pardon the big blob of text. I'll add to it as I have time: Will add to this as I go but feel free to add thoughts however you find convenient. Ajpolino (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wigby, et al. 2016 (current #4) - for the conclusion that folks diagnosed prenatally with trisomy X tend to have better outcomes than those diagnosed postnatally (which is the conclusion of this primary study of ~75 women). This could be cited to the review Tartaglia, et al. 2010 instead. Turns back the clock (less reliable) but defers to a review (more reliable).
 * Lähdesmäki and Alvesalo, 2010 (#9) supports Dental abnormalities are associated with sex chromosome aneuploidy, including trisomy X; taurodontism, increased enamel thickness, and increased root length have been connected to the condition.. The beefy reviews that would cover this are from 2009 and 2010, so they don't mention it. The Unique report (which I think was updated in 2021?) says only "Research into dental development in girls with triple X syndrome is sparse. A Unique study day found that 14/20 families said their daughter had some sort of dental problem. Problems described include poor enamel formation, pitting and need for fluoride coating." So they do not seem to take up this study. Can't find mentioned anywhere else (though apparently it is a feature of pentasomy X) so let's cut for now.
 * Tartaglia, et al. 2015 (#11) is used four times: twice to say that a given symptom is common to various aneuploidies (based on table 2 of their intro), once to reference the founding of the clinic described, and once for Awareness and diagnosis of sex chromosome aneuploidies is increasing,. Not to pick nits on that last bit, but the reference notes that diagnoses are increasing but doesn't mention awareness. Does one imply the other? Kind of... Replaced that last use with a textbook chapter. Ajpolino (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Liu, et al. 2016 (#12) is used twice. Once for One study found that the autoimmune disorders lupus and Sjögren’s syndrome are more common in trisomy X than in the general population., the other for prevalences of those two autoimmune disorders in folks with trisomy X.
 * Linden et al 1995 (#13) review and case study used twice for Although heart defects are common in some more severe X-chromosome polysomy (multiple chromosomes) conditions, and is one of three refs for Like trisomy X, tetrasomy X has a variable phenotype muddled by underdiagnosis. The tetrasomy is generally more severe than the trisomy; intellectual disability is characteristic, dysmorphic features more visible, and puberty often altered.. Seems these could likely be replaced. I'll note the book chapter Jones et al, 2013 (#6) describes heart defects in pentasomy X but not tetrasomy or trisomy. Replaced both uses.
 * Tuke, et al. 2019 (#14) - used four times. Twice in context (a large population study found... and Amongst the 244,000 women in the UK Biobank research sample...), once to reference the average age of menopause, and once for reduced household income.
 * Otter, et al. 2021 (#24) supports Though much of the research is in children, research in adult women with trisomy X suggests higher rates of autistic symptomatology than the general population. which is the conclusion of the cited study.


 * I plan to speak my mind over the next few days. On reference #4 i prefer Wigby over the review. I don't like how the review refers back to a study on mosaicisms when making this point. Even if we disregard the results of Wigby, its assesment of preexisting evidence in the introduction seems more solid. Dr Bowser (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On (#9): so they partly contradict each other then? I'm not sure whether to keep or exclude, but maybe it's best to be very vague on the specifics when it comes to dental issues in trisomy X pending further evidence. Dr Bowser (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ cut for now. Updated (and hopefully didn't mess up) the other numbering. Ajpolino (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (#11):I'm undecided. (#12) If we keep this, doesn't it make more sense to present the relative risk, rather than the prevalence of Trisomy X in "SLE/SS women"? Dr Bowser (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * (#12) Actually, since the numbers are uncertain, maybe we should do away with them altogether and only mention that these autoimmune disorders are more common?
 * (#14) I'm impressed with the size of this study. How unfortunate that we don't have any recent reviews mentioning it. If we are allowed to keep it I suppose context should be added to the remaining two mentions, since this is most likely a subpopulation as described after Amongst the 244,000 women in the UK Biobank research sample... Dr Bowser (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Part two!
 * Lim, et al. 2017 (#29) a case report and review, though an estimate from it's review section is all it's cited for.
 * Tang, et al. 2019 (#30) a case report and systematic review. Cited three times based on the latter.
 * Sybert 2002 (#31) a somewhat unusual multi-case-report + review. Used to cite average IQ in women with Turner syndrome/Trisomy X mosaic.
 * Blair, et al. 2001 (#32) study of seven girls with mosaic Turner's/Trisomy X. Cite for Women with mosaic Turner syndrome tend to have similar dysmorphic features to those with non-mosaic Turner's syndrome, but less marked, and some have none of the traditional Turner's stigmata.
 * Attfield 2020 (#43) used to cite Parents report their daughters' struggling both academically and socially at school and later Descriptions of trisomy X overwhelmingly consider the karyotype from a medical perspective, rather than a sociological or educational one. The second bit is based on the author's substantial introductory review. The first based on the actual study (interviews of 12 sets of parents).
 * Berglund, et al. 2019 (#47) is explicitly called out as a large Danish study in both uses.
 * Stockholm, et al. 2010 (#48) same idea. Explicitly notes that it's a study of the Danish cohort.
 * Barr, et al. 1969 (#53) is used to backup Early studies on sex chromosome aneuploidy screened patients residing in institutions, giving an image of the karyotypes as incapacitating; even at the time, this research was criticized for giving an inaccurate portrait of sex chromosome aneuploidy.. It's a case report and review, and presumably it criticizes contemporary studies. Do we fill that's strong enough for this sentence?
 * Attfield 2021 (#54) Ditto the above. Cites Early reports of women with trisomy X have since been criticized for a dehumanizing ableist perspective, showing nude photographs of institutionalized women described as "mental deficiency patients". Presumably this (interviews with 10 women + author's review) provides that criticism?
 * Gruchy, et al. 2016 (#66) Large retrospective French study. Supporting Abortion rates in sex chromosome aneuploidies have decreased over time with improved counselling..

Query
Ref 17 is used to support "some women with trisomy X  [...] have acquired advanced degrees or worked in cognitive fields". Unless I'm missing something, I don't see where the last part of this sentence is supported by the source. The only mention of occupational history in women with trisomy X is Sixteen females were followed into adulthood in the Edinburgh cohort and were described as gaining employment in non-academic occupations such as hairdressing or waitressing, with four being housewives. Is this information in some other source? Spicy (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh, weird. The previous source (#19, Kliegman and St. Geme textbook chapter) gets at a similar idea with There is marked variability within the syndrome, and a small proportion of affected females are well coordinated, socially outgoing, and academically superior but that doesn't quite support what's in the article. I rejiggered the wording to something supported by the textbook chapter. If I find where the "advanced degrees" bit came from, I'll add it back. Ajpolino (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)