ReviewJournal of the Endocrine Society2025
Discrepancies Between Sex Prediction and Fetal Sex After Prenatal Noninvasive Cell-Free DNA Screening.
Review in Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective study of non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for Rh status, sex prediction and mtDNA copy number analysis using ddPCR on spent culture media.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical and Nursing Students toward Noninvasive Prenatal Testing and Fetal Anomaly Scan.Annals of African medicine · 2026Article
- Germ cell and other tumors in individuals with differences in sex development.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the last 10 years the field of prenatal diagnosis has been significantly reshaped followed by the implementation of noninvasive prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing methodologies in clinical practice. Based on a superior performance and higher sensitivity and specificity than the former practice of biochemical markers screening, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommend noninvasive prenatal cfDNA screening for trisomy 21, 18, 13, and sex chromosome aneuploidy to all pregnant people. While cfDNA screening is helpful in risk assessment for the most common autosomal trisomies, cfDNA also provides information about fetal sex chromosomes. Prediction of fetal sex is highly desired by the parents and also useful to healthcare providers for management of pregnancies that are at-risk for X-linked conditions. In fact, utilization of cfDNA screening has resulted in a significant number of referrals to evaluate discordant results for cfDNA sex prediction and appearance of fetal genitalia by prenatal ultrasound scan or at birth raising concerns about the fetus/infant atypical sex development known as a difference in sex development (DSD). In this mini-review, we outline principles and limitations of cfDNA technology, summarize recent findings related to cfDNA test performance in prediction of sex chromosome abnormalities and DSD conditions, define the technical and biological causes of discrepant results, provide recommendations to consolidate efforts by prenatal and clinical management teams in challenging situations, and discuss ethical considerations associated with fetal sex prediction and prenatal DSD diagnosis.
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.