ArticleBioMed research international2018
Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: Comparison of Two Mappers and Influence in the Diagnostic Yield.
Article in BioMed research international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- CfDNA Measurement as a Diagnostic Tool for the Detection of Brain Somatic Mutations in Refractory Epilepsy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine if the use of different mappers for NIPT may vary the results considerably.
methodsPeripheral blood was collected from 217 pregnant women, 58 pathological (34 pregnancies with trisomy 21, 18 with trisomy 18, and 6 with trisomy 13) and 159 euploid. MPS was performed following a manufacturer's modified protocol of semiconductor sequencing. Obtained reads were mapped with two different software programs: TMAP and HPG-Aligner, comparing the results.
resultsUsing TMAP, 57 pathological samples were correctly detected (sensitivity 98.28%, specificity 93.08%): 33 samples as trisomy 21 (sensitivity 97.06%, specificity 99.45%), 16 as trisomy 18 (sensibility 88.89%, specificity 93.97%), and 6 as trisomy 13 (sensibility 100%, specificity 100%). 11 false positives, 1 false negative, and 2 samples incorrectly identified were obtained. Using HPG-Aligner, all the 58 pathological samples were correctly identified (sensibility 100%, specificity 96.86%): 34 as trisomy 21 (sensibility 100%, specificity 98.91%), 18 as trisomy 18 (sensibility 100%, specificity 98.99%), and 6 as trisomy 13 (sensibility 100%, specificity 99.53%). 5 false positives were obtained.
conclusionDifferent mappers use slightly different algorithms, so the use of one mapper or another with the same batch file can provide different results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.