Talk:Down syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Down syndrome is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 5, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Translation / Medical genetics / Neurology (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Disability (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Down syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Autism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Down syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Epilepsy (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Down syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of epilepsy and epileptic seizures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Deaf (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Can someone please change the word MR to ID. In this day and age there is NO good reason to use that awful term. The person who wrote that, should be ashamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tara221 (talkcontribs) 19:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

For the curious, what the user above is referring to was the use of the term "Mental retardation" in the Characteristics table, which has now been replaced with "Intellectual disability." David (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep that Euphemism Treadmill going. The People Who Decide Such Things told us that "moron", "imbecile", etc. were bad words, and we were to refer to these folks as "mentally retarded". But once people figured out that the new euphemism meant exactly the same thing as the Old Bad Words meant, the New Good Words became Bad Words too. Soon enough, "Intellectual disability" will be seen as so horrible that Nice People won't even use the words, and will be forced to use abbreviations. (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That whole chart still seems problematic to me, and unfortunately since the it's a Spanish (i.e. from Spain, not just the language) publication it seems hard to check the source of all those percentages or the terminology they used. Other sources around the 'net that describe the characteristics of DS don't cite percentages, so I'm not sure the chart could be replaced with an English version that uses the currently acceptable terminology in English speaking countries.

Site that talk about the different physical and mental characteristics of DS usually seem to use the terms "cognitive impairment" or "learning disability" which are much more specific descriptions than the broader "intellectual disability" term. In particular, this site:, mentions that DS is rarely associated with severe cognitive impairment, which seems to be much less alarming or stigmatizing as the MR or ID terms.

For now, I'm going to change it to "cognitive impairment," though it would be nice if we could update this chart or even just eliminate it for nothing better can be found than the Spanish resource. I'll try to dig around the library at Boston's Children Hospital next time I'm in the area, maybe they have something. 3lb33 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The ACP uses mental impairment [3] thus switched to that. Will work on updating the table eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Much of it is supported by this ref [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
And the rest appears to be here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Awesome job Doc. Thanks! 3lb33 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Mentally Retarded" literally means "mentally slow" it is a euphemism for mental deficiency. It was coined as a less harsh way of putting it. Whatever euphemism you substitute for "mentally retarded" will eventually lose it's euphemistic power also. Some people already consider the word "special" to be an insult. John Alan ElsonWF6I A.P.O.I. 00:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


No one gives the percentage that graduates from highschool. It is strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In adulthood about 20% in the United States do paid work in some capacity.[11][98] In Europe, however, less than 1% have regular jobs.[96]

11 does not support the claim as far as I can tell, and 98 and 96 are unavailable for me. (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Just because a citation is not easily available does not mean it needs fixing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Need to confirm positive cell-free fetal DNA test[edit]

I moved the following sentence in box to here, because I'm not sure the false positive rate as described in the recent article at [6] was known at the time of issuing these guidelines. I think we need updated guidelines on this statement. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmatory testing by invasive techniques (amniocentesis, CVS) is still required to confirm the screening result.[1]
The ref you mention is a primary source. No evidence that this recommendation has changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So lets run the numbers. Say 1:1000 women have a preg with DS. False positives occur in 0.3%. Lets say it picks up all cases.

You test 1000 women. You find one child with DS and your test comes back positive for 3 children without DS. Do you offer further testing or just abort all 4 pregs with positive tests? You or course offer further testing. Would also prefer a secondary source for the 0.3% number Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good points, it does deserve its place in the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I can appreciate that false positives need to be mentioned in the article but the present way that it's expressed is really quite poor. There needs at an absolute minimum to be a preamble to give it context. The way that this says 'If one in five hundred pregnancies have down syndrome and if the false positive rate is 5%...' which doesn't adequately frame the issues in testing, it just says it like a math problem. There needs to be a preamble explaining that false positives present a significant ethical problem for parents and doctors because even a 95% reliable test is likely to produce more false positives than genuine positives, given the relative rarity of DS. Then present those numbers as an example of the problem - Only 1 in 500 genuine cases, so even a very accurate test with a false-positive rate of over 99% percent will still throw up more false positives than positives and this results in a significant problem for prenatal diagnosis. Just launching into the states with no context makes it sounds like we neither know how common down syndrome is or how common false positives are; its very abstract and wordy and doesn't clearly express the issue at all. (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Down syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vinethemonkey (talk · contribs) 18:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and this is Vinethemonkey. I'll review what you have.


All references are good. I see no problem in them. There are enough of them to be believed.

Research section[edit]

It seems to be a stub, even with the outside link. You could either delete it or turn it into a smaller section. You could also fix this up and put more words in it.

Green tickYDone: OccultZone has done this. Please confirm of references and make sure none of them are dead links.


It seems to be good.

Length of article[edit]

It is lengthy enough for someone to understand the concept of it.


It is good enough.

I'm not really sure if a kid wearing a bowl cut putting a bookshelf together is the best image for down syndrome. 2601:190:1:2610:2960:B419:F99C:316A (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

Check to make sure that none of the references are dead links or lead to a wikipedia page.

Use of list is good.

Decision for now[edit]

I will wait for the fixing of the research section (it's too short). Other then that, I'm satisfied with this article.

@Vinethemonkey:, check now? OccultZone (Talk) 19:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: I'm afraid I do not understand you. What do you mean by check now?VINETHEMONKEY 19:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey
Check Down_syndrome#Research. OccultZone (Talk) 19:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What was added to the research section was already covered in the rest of the article. We can write more about the issue of stem cell transplantation as this is an active area of research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added a bit more and we have a link to a subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

It is now a good article. Congratulations!VINETHEMONKEY 04:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Vinethemonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinethemonkey (talkcontribs)

  1. ^ Benn, P; Borrell, A; Cuckle, H; Dugoff, L; Gross, S; Johnson, JA; Maymon, R; Odibo, A; Schielen, P; Spencer, K; Wright, D; Yaron, Y (Jan 2012). "Prenatal Detection of Down Syndrome using Massively Parallel Sequencing (MPS): a rapid response statement from a committee on behalf of the Board of the International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis, 24 October 2011." (PDF). Prenatal diagnosis. 32 (1): 1–2. doi:10.1002/pd.2919. PMID 22275335.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)


Why would Down syndrome individuals have a higher incidence of being Autistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't know. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service | my evil deads) 09:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Please add upslanted Palpebral fissure to signs"[edit]

Palpebral fissure — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2014[edit]

The preposition 'to' is missing from the first sentence under the Fertility heading. Please change to read "...lower rates of fertility relative to those who are unaffected." Ith!nk (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Date Conflict[edit]

In the "History" section appears: "Édouard Séguin described it as separate from cretinism in 1944"

I think Édouard Séguin died in 1880, which would make it unlikely that he described anything as anything in 1944. Or are you referring to a different Édouard Séguin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit in Society and Culture / Ethics[edit]

In Society and Culture / Ethics, it says "Protestants often see abortion as acceptable when a fetus has Down syndrome" and cites an encyclopedia. The actual Encyclopedia reference says "many religious traditions, including many Protestant denominations, deem abortion ... permissible. There is a huge divide in Protestant circles (that fall along similar lines to gay marriage) with conservative Protestants outright rejecting abortion and liberal ones embracing it. Because of this, I think the text should read "some Protestant denominations see abortion as acceptable when a fetus has Down syndrome". I do not think the source is taking care in weighting denominations by populations, so it is inappropriate to say "many Protestants" or "many Protestant denominations."

2602:306:BD8A:5990:C139:958E:A2F:B94A (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Grey Gordon

Thanks good points. Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ethics Section Non-Neutral[edit]

I just skimmed the Down syndrome article and found that the Ethics section contains some opinions that are stated as facts. Sentences quoting reference 107 are stated as fact, such as the second sentence: "people should at least be given information about it." The article itself is titled "Current opinion..."

The overall sense of the ethics section comes across as promoting the view that termination of a Down pregnancy is ethical. I believe equal text length should be added to present the opposing viewpoint, that it is not ethical to terminate a Down pregnancy, and that therefore screening for Down syndrome is a moot point.

Alas, I am at work and do not have time currently to find the proper sources to write those paragraphs myself, but I would encourage someone of like viewpoint to "neutralize" this section by presenting fully the "unethical" viewpoint.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calledupward (talkcontribs) 16:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2015[edit]

Genetic disorder
If known, causal type of mutation and the chromosome involved
Disorder Down syndrome
Mutation C
Chromosome 21
Further information: List of genetic disorders (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

We describe this in the text. A box not needed IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Infobox(s) are generally considered a desirable element to be included in most articles. The case that information given by an Infobox —is also inside the text of an article, is nearly universal. The Infobox Genetic Disorder should be added to the article. Users should improve it, then it should be made into a template for use on other Genetic Disorder articles. (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
We already have an infobox and do not need another one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. The Mutation article appears to have 2 templated infoboxs. Is there a policy that an article should not have 2 infoboxs ?
  2. The article does need another infobox —to present to the reader that this article is a Genetic disorder topic. Just as the Mutation article infoboxs —presents to the reader that the article is an Evolution and Genetics topic. (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
While we disagree than. Yes the mutation article should have one of these boxes removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no policy against having 2 infoboxs and the Mutation article is an example of the benefit and common practice of having 2 infoboxs in an article. Your arguments for not including the requested infobox are quixotic. (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
To be more clear, that infobox is not useful. The content is already in the text. The infobox is therefore not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. How many items of unique data not appearing in the text, must an infobox contain to be acceptable ?
  2. May an infobox contain any non unique data also appearing in the text and still be acceptable ?
  3. Is there a policy in regards to items 1 and 2 ? (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Common in cousin marriage[edit]

Can we mention that is more common in cousin marriage as shown here or is this source not considered reputable?-- (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a terribly reliable source, and even then, the statistics seem pretty low, so they may not have statistically significant data. Of course, it's impossible to really tell where they got their information from anyways. Centerone (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Most common[edit]

Which one is true? Klinefelter syndrome is the most common chromosomal disorder, and it occurs in 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births
Also, Down syndrome is the most common chromosome abnormality in humans,[3] occurring in about one per 1000 babies born each year.[2] One or both of these need to be phrased "is one of the most common" (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why chromosome 21?[edit]

Is there any information about what makes chromosome 21 so much more commonly duplicated than other chromosomes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Two missed subjects[edit]

Although I am an editor on wikipedia, I came to this article to find more information about DS. I appluad all editors for the fine quality of this article, it was well organized and detailed. I found it lacking in two areas, 1) why is that DS individuals have a specific "look" about them? It seems above and beyond the "flattened nasal bridge" and "slanted eyes". My wife often puts it that "people with DS look like they are related". I do not believe this characteristic is explored in this article. 2) the opening does not state that DS is hereditary, and the artcile goes to some link to discuss the chances of a child being born with DS. However, a single line under fertility says, "Without assisted reproductive technologies, around half of the children of someone with Down syndrome will also have the syndrome." I think this is something that needs better clarification.StarHOG (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It says under genetics "The parents of the affected individual are typically genetically normal." Fertility is poor in people with Downs "As of 2006, three instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children and 26 cases of females having children have been reported."
I will add the first line to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Doc, but I hated that sentence, too. Over what period of time is that report, and is it world wide, in the UK, in the US? I'm certian that, worldwide, since the dawn of time, there have probably been more thn 26 DS females who have had children. StarHOG (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
It is the number of cases that have been reported in the medical literature before 2006. The exact number is not known but it is small. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016[edit]

Please change "Their is no know behavior" to "There is no known behavior". Please also change "Their is no cure for Down syndrome" to "There is no cure for Down syndrome". I am requesting these changes because there is a grammatical error; the wrong form of the word is used.

TillieMae (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you for the suggestions that helped improve Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Opening paragraph is extremely biased[edit]

The opening paragraph says " mild to moderate intellectual disability", however the proven scientific reality is that down syndromers have extremely severe mental retardation. There are hundreds of easily accessible references for this.

One could also read the read the review that supports the text in question which says " IQ values vary, usually ranging from 35 to 70, indicating mild to moderate mental impairment; severe mental impairment is only occasionally seen in children with DS" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Another misleading phrase in the opening section is "The extra chromosome occurs by random chance. There is no known behavior or environmental factor that changes the risk." The risk indeed does increase with maternal age according to Mayo clinic The two sentences with the same source is also odd and the first sentence isn't very meaningful since everything occurs by random chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhiatt (talkcontribs) 02:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Down(without the apostrophe s) syndrome?[edit]

Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere but, isn't the proper name "Down's syndrome" because it was named after John Langdon Down, its original classifier?Cebr1979 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable at all in this subject, but this section in the article has a wealth of sources about the history of the various names. Me, Myself & I (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"Emotional range" a belittling sentence?[edit]

Not here to have an argument but to ask for more opinions on this. There is a sentence under the "Neurological" section that rubs me the wrong way. It says "People with Down syndrome experience a wide range of emotions." To me at least, this sounds rather condescending. A wide range of emotions is something shared by nearly all humans. (I want to say all but I won't presume that.) The sentence struck me as "Isn't this interesting, people with Down syndrome are kind of like 'normal' people!" If the consensus among editors is that a wide range of emotions is a human trait, and it doesn't need to be specified that people with Down syndrome share that trait with other humans, I would recommend that sentence be deleted. Then the sentence following could be changed from "While generally happy, symptoms of depression and anxiety may develop in early adulthood" to "While people with Down syndrome are generally happy [cheerful?], symptoms of depression and anxiety may develop in early adulthood." (I also prefer the term "cheerful" over "happy" because, once again, to me personally, "cheerful" denotes a general attitude and outlook of "Life is pretty nice" while "happy" is more an emotional response to given circumstances.) I won't make any of these changes without discussion from other editors first. Jojopeanut (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, tone-wise or not, the second sentence I mentioned ("While generally happy, symptoms of depression and anxiety may develop in early adulthood") is incorrect grammatically. The subject is "symptoms" and symptoms of depression and anxiety are not generally happy. So I am changing that to "While people with Down syndrome are generally happy, symptoms of depression and anxiety may develop in early adulthood." I would still like to hear discussion on whether "cheerful" is a better term and whether the preceding sentence should be removed as biased in its insinuation. Jojopeanut (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Down Syndrome, Amyloid precursor protein (APP), and Alzheimer's Disease[edit]

I read a US Pharmacist article on Alzheimer's Disease dated January 2015, and it stated the chromosome 21 is the source of the amyloid precursor protein that gives rise to too much Beta amyloid in Alzheimer's Disease. It further states that "essentially all individuals with Down Syndrome will develop AD by age 40". I have my doubts about the academic quality of the remark, but below is the citation given to justify it. Chromosome 21. Genetics Home Reference. November 2013. chromosome/21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

More relevant info needed re Real World People with Down's (I'm English so we say Down's in UK)[edit]

This is a good article HOWEVER it's been said to me time and time again how depressing it is. There is fat too much mention of the physical and not enough on social or present day thinking on people with different abilities. AND ... there is NO mention of people with Down's Syndrome's ABILITIES and far too much focus on their disabilities. In case you're wondering what I might know about this subject, I am more of an expert than most as my sister had Down's, my brother in law who is alive at age 66 has too...I am a local advocate. I am going to be editing and adding to this article. I am also a health professional and advise and care for clients with children, some of which have disabilities. I would love this article to add the info about people with Down's in film, TV (why isn't there a link to this article when it's actually on wikipedia???? Janet_Mitchell, advertising, modelling and more M&S modelling and photography
why isn't there a link to this page either? do people with Down's Syndrome not deserve links from the page about their 'condition' ?? List_of_people_with_Down_syndrome
I recently counselled a client whose first child has Down's and she came here and spent a few hours crying because there was NOTHING about what people with Down's syndrome have achieved. There is also no mention of the various charities who campaign for Down's in UK and other countries. So, how would we word the inclusion of people with Down's ABILITIES? I've been watching this page for over 10 years and for the people who KEEP asking 'why is there a picture of a kid with Down's using a toy drill?'....the answer is, if you go back in time, WHY NOT?.. his FATHER took the photo, and he was having fun learning how to use a drill !!! OK?? so please stop asking that question! People with Down's get married , give birth and have 'normal' children , have jobs Yes, REAL jobs , star in films, have friends, go to school/college, run businesses , even work in their local council as councillors ... you name it, someone with Down's will have done it... I think the heading should be named 'INCLUSION' what is the consensus? xx <3 Veryscarymary (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a link to List of people with Down syndrome in the article. It is right after the "society and culture" heading were one often sees these sorts of links.
We discuss fertility. It is "estimated to be present in 30–50% of females." and is lower in males. And we even say the chance of having a non Down child "around half of the children of someone with Down syndrome will also have the syndrome"
Gah not the mirror and we do not use case reports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Others argue that Down syndrome shouldn't be prevented or cured and that eliminating Down syndrome amounts to genocide.

What a bizarre statement. Only one of the two sources at the end of this sentence mentions genocide and that is from a mother who says: "There's the perception that [preventing and eliminating the genetic disorder] is almost a type of cultural genocide, that our children represent an international global community." Keywords: "perception", "almost", "cultural genocide". Saying that a portion of people see curing DS as the same as genocide is a huge leap from there. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

False Positive Rates[edit]

I am not an expert in medical statistics, but can anyone confirm that the stats re false-positive are correct? A 5% false-positive rate means that only one in 28 would have a confirmed case - surely that would be a false-positive rate of 95%, not 5%? And it would be one in 20 - where does the 28 come from? I haven't got the understanding to interpret the original document in a medical capacity but based on stats those figures seem to go against mainstream maths. (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Totally Agree! This math seems very suspect. A 5% false-positive rate would mean that of 100 fetuses that were predicted by the test to have down syndrome, 5 of them would _not_ have down. The other statistic mentioned is the following: "If the screening test has a 2% false-positive rate, this means one of 10 who test positive on screening have a fetus with DS.[72]". This is completely wrong. If a screening test has a 2% false positive rate then of 100 positive test results only 2 would _not_ have DS. The person who wrote these paragraphs needs to review basic math. The author says 1 in 10 positive tests would have DS and by my count that equates to a 90% false-positive rate, not a 2% false positive rate. (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Text is "If Down syndrome occurs in one in 500 pregnancies and the test used has a 5% false-positive rate, this means, of 28 women who test positive on screening, only one will have Down syndrome confirmed." So you test 500 pregs and the test is wrongly positive in 5% (500 * 5%) = 25. Than you add the one true positive to that and you get 26 rather than 28 so corrected. If you use 2% * 500 = 10 false positives for one true positive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Down's syndrome[edit]

In the UK this is always called "Down's syndrome". This needs to be mentioned in the opening sentence. (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It is in the infobox and can go in the body. All the small alternative spelling differences do not need to go in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no known behavior or environmental factor that changes the risk[edit]

I'm reluctant to change the lead of this article labelled good but I find this statement partial and misleading. You have to read well down to the epidemiology section to find that the risk of Down Syndrome increases from 0.1% to over 3% as the age of the mother increases from 20 to 45. This seems to me an obvious behavioral factor and is so well known that it should be included in the lead. Chris55 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A mothers age is not a behavioral risk factor. But agree we should add the age difference to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence of the fourth paragraph should be changed from "The genetic cause of Down syndrome—an extra copy of chromosome 21—was identified by French researchers in 1959." to "The genetic cause of Down syndrome—an extra copy of chromosome 21—was identified by French researcher Jérôme Lejeune in 1959." with a hyperlink to Jérôme Lejeune's wikipedia site: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)