ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2026
Prenatal Exome Sequencing Analysis in Fetuses With Structural Anomalies: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study With Practical Implications.
Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2026. 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.
- 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
- Review
- Prenatal Exome Sequencing Analysis in Fetuses With Structural Anomalies: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study With Practical Implications.Prenatal diagnosis · 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic value of prenatal exome sequencing (ES) integrated with copy number variant (CNV) and single nucleotide variant (SNV) analysis (ES-CNV/SNV) in fetuses with structural anomalies following negative chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) and karyotyping, and to delineate the practical challenges encountered during its clinical implementation in prenatal settings.
methodsIn this multicenter prospective cohort study (2018-2021), 275 fetuses with structural anomalies were categorized into three groups: sporadic single-system (n = 128), sporadic multisystem (n = 88), and recurrent anomalies (n = 59). Trio-based ES-CNV/SNV analysis was used to identify SNVs, CNVs, or compound heterozygous CNV/SNV combinations- the latter being defined as two distinct pathogenic variants (a CNV and an SNV) coexisting within the same gene, resulting in biallelic gene dysfunction, which is pivotal for autosomal recessive disorders. Incremental diagnostic yields across groups, the incidence of CNV/SNV combinations, and expanded prenatal phenotypic-genotypic correlations were analyzed.
resultsES-CNV/SNV analysis improved the diagnostic yield to 29.45% (81/275) compared with conventional chromosome analysis combined with CMA in fetuses with malformations. The highest diagnostic yield was observed in the recurrent anomaly group (40.68%, 24/59), followed by the multisystem (28.41%, 25/88) and single-system anomaly groups (25.00%, 32/128). Notably, 1.45% of cases harbored compound CNV/SNV combinations, underscoring the diagnostic potential of ES-CNV/SNV in autosomal recessive disorders. In addition, this study expanded prenatal phenotypic-genotypic correlations for 36 variants and five genes.
conclusionES-CNV/SNV analysis enhances prenatal diagnostic precision by detecting compound CNV/SNV combinations that are undetectable by standard testing. Recurrent anomalies demonstrated a greater diagnostic benefit than sporadic single-system or multisystem anomalies, underscoring the utility of this method in high-risk cases. This study broadens the prenatal phenotypic spectrum and deepens our understanding of developmental mechanisms.
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.