ArticleScientific reports2025
The value of increasing sequencing depth for noninvasive prenatal screening for whole chromosomal aneuploidy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary Diagnostic Roles of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing, Chromosomal Microarray Analysis, and Karyotyping in 14,011 High-Risk Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Combined Analyses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Celocentesis for Prenatal Diagnosis of Rare Monogenic Diseases: Development, Validation, and Clinical Outcome on 876 Cases.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- Improved positive predictive value of non-invasive prenatal testing through integration with second-trimester ultrasound soft markers for fetal chromosomal abnormalities: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Clinical Feasibility of Early First-Trimester Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: Associations Between Gestational Age, Fetal Fraction, and No-Call Rates.The application of clinical genetics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the value of increasing sequencing depths of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for fetal chromosomal aneuploidies based on the semiconductor sequencing platform. This study recruited a cohort of 59,800 singleton pregnancies from Guangdong Women and Children Hospital between January 2015 and December 2020, including 48,018 cases of NIPT and 11,782 cases of expanded NIPT. Cell-free DNA from plasma samples was sequenced at a sequencing depth of 0.15X for NIPT and 0.4X for expanded NIPT. Patients with positive NIPT results were offered fetal karyotyping or microarray analysis for confirmatory testing, and all pregnant women were followed up. A total of 892 cases were predicted as positive for chromosomal aneuploidies, including 682 cases of NIPT and 210 cases of expanded NIPT, with a positive rate of 1.42% and 1.78% (p = 0.0037), respectively. The positive predictive values (PPV) for trisomy 21/18/13 and other autosomal aneuploidies detected by NIPT were 84.80%, 69.23%, 25.00%, and 4.55%, respectively. For expanded NIPT, the positive predictive rates were 86.96%, 80.00%, 35.00%, and 8.77%, respectively. Both NIPT and expanded NIPT have the same PPV for detecting sex chromosome aneuploidies (approximately 50%). Additionally, one false-negative case was identified during the follow-up period. This was a trisomy 18 confirmed by prenatal diagnosis due to multiple ultrasound abnormalities during pregnancy. The study shows that increasing sequencing depth can significantly improve the PPV performance of aneuploidies, with a statistically significant difference, particularly in trisomy 18. The results may provide valuable guidance for clinical doctors during consultations.
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.