ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
A retrospective analysis of 38,652 amniotic fluid karyotype.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 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.
- Advancing Prenatal Diagnosis: From Conventional Karyotyping to Genome-Wide CNV Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Chromosomal Instability and Telomere Attrition in Systemic Sclerosis: A Historical Perspective.Genes · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chromosomal karyotype analysis remains a classical and frontline method in prenatal diagnosis, capable of detecting balanced chromosomal abnormalities and providing insights distinct from high-resolution molecular techniques such as CMA and CNV-Seq. However, large-scale studies on the distribution of structural abnormalities and mosaicism in amniotic fluid karyotypes are scarce, with most previous research focusing on common aneuploidies. Objective: The study aimed to elucidate the relationship between chromosomal structural abnormalities and specific chromosomes. Methods: We established a large-scale amniotic fluid karyotype database by collecting prenatal diagnostic indications and karyotype analysis results from amniotic fluid samples of 38,652 pregnant women who underwent prenatal diagnosis at the Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital. Results: From 2010 to 2024, the proportion of high-risk serological screening cases showed a decreasing trend year by year, while the proportions of high-risk non-invasive prenatal testing, increased nuchal translucency, and ultrasound abnormalities all showed increasing trends. Among all results, the proportions of non-mosaic abnormalities, mosaicism, polymorphisms, and normal karyotypes were 4.68%, 0.71%, 1.7%, and 92.91%, respectively. Inversion of chromosome 9 and variations in heterochromatin length of the Y chromosome were the most common polymorphisms. Sex chromosome aneuploidies were more prone to mosaicism. Inversions of chromosomes 9 and Y were the most frequent types of inversions. Robertsonian translocations occurred most commonly between chromosomes 13 and 14, while reciprocal translocations were most frequently observed between chromosomes 11 and 22. Chromosome breakage was most common in chromosomes Y and 1, whereas deletions were most frequently detected in chromosomes X and 5. Isochromosomes mainly appeared in a mosaic form in chromosome X. Among all indication groups, high-risk NIPT was associated with the highest positive rate for unbalanced abnormalities. A searchable karyotype database was setup, which allows users to query abnormal karyotypes identified in this study. Conclusion: Specific chromosomal abnormalities and mosaicisms tend to occur in particular chromosomes. Therefore, attention should be paid to specific chromosomes during karyotype analysis.
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.