ArticleBMC medical genomics2025
Effective detection of 148 cases chromosomal mosaicism by karyotyping, chromosomal microarray analysis and QF-PCR in 32,967 prenatal diagnoses.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Application of chromosomal microarray analysis for prenatal diagnosis in 315 ultrasonically abnormal fetuses.Frontiers in 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDetection of mosaicism has always been difficult in prenatal diagnosis, which is to assess the value of karyotyping combined with three different molecular genetic tests for prenatal diagnosis. Retrospective review of chromosomal mosaicism (CM) was conducted in 32,967 pregnant women from January 2015 to December 2022.
methodsA total of 148 fetuses diagnosed with chromosomal mosaicism by karyotyping with copy number variant sequencing (CNV-seq)/ chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) were selected, and the results from three the methods were compared and further analyzed. The χ2 test for multiple group rates was for the 5 clinical prenatal diagnostic indication groups was used to do multiple comparison tests for statistical analysis. Inconsistent results between methods were identified and further analyzed.
resultsA total of 148 CM cases was detected (0.45%, 148/32967), of which karyotyping was detected in combination with CMA in 73 cases (73/85), with CNV-seq in 5 cases (5/11), and with QF-PCR in 35 cases (35/52) and the mosaic conformity rates of the three methods compared with karyotyping were 85.9% (CMA), 67.3% (QF-PCR), and 45.5% (CNV-seq), respectively. There were 49 cases of autosomal mosaicism (49/148, 33.1%) and 99 cases of sex CM (99/148, 66.9%). There were 9 cases of small supernumerary marker chromosome (sSMC)with CMA detection clarified the origin of chromosome fragments. The non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) group and the ultrasound abnormality group had the highest detection rates, accounting for 35.1% and 22.3%.
conclusionsIn chromosomal mosaicism, there are inconsistent results between different detection methods. Therefore, karyotyping combined with CMA/CNV-seq and FISH methods significantly improves the detection rate of chromosomal mosaicism and also confirms experimental data in the literature, which is of great value for prenatal 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.