ArticleScientific reports2025
Parent-of-origin testing of prenatal copy number variations: a retrospective study of 167 family cases.
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.
- Development and temporal validation of a multimodal post-test risk stratification model for pregnancies with abnormal prenatal findings.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Application Value of Chromosome Microarray Analysis in Prenatal Diagnosis of Clinically Relevant Copy Number Variations in Fetuses.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Case Report: Prenatal diagnosis of 10 fetuses with 15q11-q13 duplication and pregnancy outcome in a cohort of Chinese women.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Copy number variants in fetuses with isolated and non-isolated increased nuchal translucency detected by chromosomal microarray analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Low-penetrance pathogenic copy number variations (CNVs), variation of uncertain significance (VUS) CNVs and likely pathogenic CNVs present a challenge for prenatal diagnosis. Previous studies have clarified the influence of a parent-of-origin test on the prenatal VUS CNVs. However, the influence of parent-of-origin tests on prenatal likely pathogenic (LP) or low-penetrance pathogenic CNVs (pCNVs) have not been evaluated. Here, among 2273 pregnant women undergoing prenatal diagnosis, 236 CNVs were reported by chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) including 69 full-penetrance pCNVs, 44 low-penetrance pCNVs, 113 VUS CNVs and 10 LP CNVs. Based on the subsequent parent-of-origin tests, CNVs were classified as de novo, inherited and unknown group. Firstly, a total of 112 couple (62 VUS CNVs, two LP CNVs and 48 pCNVs) chose parent-of-origin tests and 88 inherited CNVs (51 VUS CNVs, two LP CNVs and 35 pCNVs ) were identified. Then, the effect of parent-of-origin tests was focused on 44 low-penetrance pCNVs, 113 VUS CNVs and 10 LP CNVs in this study (n = 167). For 44 low-penetrance pCNVs, termination of pregnancy (TOP) rates in de novo, inherited and unknown group were 100% (5/5), 23.5% (4/17) and 40.9% (9/22), respectively. TOP decisions in low-penetrance pCNVs were mainly affected by de novo and abnormal ultrasound findings. For 113 VUS CNVs, inherited VUS CNVs dramatically reduced anxiety reflected by TOP rates in de novo (18.2%, 2/11), inherited (0/51) and unknown group (2.0%, 1/51). Notably, prenatal minor structural defects often disappeared after birth. These results suggested the majority VUS CNVs have no appreciable pathogenicity. For 10 LP CNVs, TOP rates in inherited and unknown group were 0% (0/2) and 87.5% (7/8), which suggested that it is imperative that parent-of-origin tests be offered for LP CNVs to bring the classification to pathogenic or VUS.
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.