ArticleBMC medical genomics2018
Strategies to minimize false positives and interpret novel microdeletions based on maternal copy-number variants in 87,000 noninvasive prenatal screens.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recurrent Hodgkin's Lymphoma Detected Using Abnormal NIPT in Pregnancy: A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Outcomes and Management of Pregnancies Screening Positive for Microdeletions 22q11.2, 15q11.2, 1p36, 4p, or 5p: A Retrospective Cohort Study.The application of clinical genetics · 2026Article
- Combined fetal fraction to analyze the Z-score accuracy of noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal trisomies 13, 18, and 21.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Cell-Free Fetal DNA and Non-Invasive Prenatal Diagnosis of Chromosomopathies and Pediatric Monogenic Diseases: A Critical Appraisal and Medicolegal Remarks.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Systematic analysis of the causes of NIPS sex chromosome aneuploidy false-positive results.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical experience of noninvasive prenatal testing for rare chromosome abnormalities in singleton pregnancies.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- High-throughput fetal fraction amplification increases analytical performance of noninvasive prenatal screening.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) of common aneuploidies using cell-free DNA from maternal plasma is part of routine prenatal care and is widely used in both high-risk and low-risk patient populations. High specificity is needed for clinically acceptable positive predictive values. Maternal copy-number variants (mCNVs) have been reported as a source of false-positive aneuploidy results that compromises specificity.
methodsWe surveyed the mCNV landscape in 87,255 patients undergoing NIPS. We evaluated both previously reported and novel algorithmic strategies for mitigating the effects of mCNVs on the screen's specificity. Further, we analyzed the frequency, length, and positional distribution of CNVs in our large dataset to investigate the curation of novel fetal microdeletions, which can be identified by NIPS but are challenging to interpret clinically.
resultsmCNVs are common, with 65% of expecting mothers harboring an autosomal CNV spanning more than 200 kb, underscoring the need for robust NIPS analysis strategies. By analyzing empirical and simulated data, we found that general, outlier-robust strategies reduce the rate of mCNV-caused false positives but not as appreciably as algorithms specifically designed to account for mCNVs. We demonstrate that large-scale tabulation of CNVs identified via routine NIPS could be clinically useful: together with the gene density of a putative microdeletion region, we show that the region's relative tolerance to duplications versus deletions may aid the interpretation of microdeletion pathogenicity.
conclusionsOur study thoroughly investigates a common source of NIPS false positives and demonstrates how to bypass its corrupting effects. Our findings offer insight into the interpretation of NIPS results and inform the design of NIPS algorithms suitable for use in screening in the general obstetric population.
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.