Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
political) review process at the same journal in which the suggestion
needed to analyze every bit of LB1's considerable skeleton in light of the
entire clinical literature on Laron syndrome, while paying particular
attention to the 33 characteristics that supposedly indicated LB1 had LS.
We compared measurements, photographs, and images from x-rays and
CT scans of LB1 with as much relevant information as we could find in
the scant literature for untreated patients with LS.
Except for short stature, we concluded that LB1's skeleton bore little
resemblance to those of untreated patients with LS. Reiterating all of the
details of our analysis is beyond the scope of this topic, but I will sum-
share the ten features that are traditionally diagnostic for LS. The shape
and thickness of LB1's skull and its brow ridges were all wrong (figure
25). Plus her skull was widest at the bottom (not the top), and her face
was comparatively large in relation to her skull. LB1's jaw was developed
rather than underdeveloped, and her teeth and chin were also completely
atypical for LS. The relative size of LB1's head was
much
smaller than that
of LS patients—no false impression of a large head for her!
Nor does the list of 33 “major diagnostic criteria” wash when it comes
ments of patients diagnosed with LS, two of the new criteria contra-
dicted the earlier literature for LS: Instead of delicate long bones, the
shaft of the upper bone of the arm (the humerus) was listed as “pro-
nounced” in its thickness in patients with LS, and the thickness of their
skulls was scored as “normal,” in contrast to earlier descriptions that
was also scored as “normal” for LB1, which was clearly off the mark. Not
only were the bones of LB1's skull much thicker than those of patients
with LS; they also contained cavities filled with air (called air cells).
Furthermore, LB1 had a frontal sinus that was considerably larger than
We were also unable to confirm the suggestion that LB1 resembled