ArticlePloS one2023
A comprehensive performance analysis of sequence-based within-sample testing NIPT methods.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of expanded non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidies and copy-number variations in 9,708 pregnancies.Molecular cytogenetics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-Invasive Prenatal Testing is often performed by utilizing read coverage-based profiles obtained from shallow whole genome sequencing to detect fetal copy number variations. Such screening typically operates on a discretized binned representation of the genome, where (ab)normality of bins of a set size is judged relative to a reference panel of healthy samples. In practice such approaches are too costly given that for each tested sample they require the resequencing of the reference panel to avoid technical bias. Within-sample testing methods utilize the observation that bins on one chromosome can be judged relative to the behavior of similarly behaving bins on other chromosomes, allowing the bins of a sample to be compared among themselves, avoiding technical bias.
resultsWe present a comprehensive performance analysis of the within-sample testing method Wisecondor and its variants, using both experimental and simulated data. We introduced alterations to Wisecondor to explicitly address and exploit paired-end sequencing data. Wisecondor was found to yield the most stable results across different bin size scales while producing more robust calls by assigning higher Z-scores at all fetal fraction ranges.
conclusionsOur findings show that the most recent available version of Wisecondor performs best.
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.