ArticleBMC research notes2025
A simple nomogram tool for predicting fetal chromosomal abnormalities based on ultrasound soft markers: a research note.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUltrasound soft markers (USMs) are associated with increased risk of fetal chromosomal abnormalities but lack standardized risk assessment methods, often leading to unnecessary amniocentesis procedures. We aimed to develop a practical nomogram tool to quantify this risk and help clinicians make more objective decisions about invasive testing, particularly in resource-limited settings.
resultsWe retrospectively analyzed 565 pregnancies with USMs who underwent amniocentesis between 2016 and 2024. Our nomogram integrated six readily available clinical factors: maternal age, thickened nuchal translucency, adverse pregnancy history, structural malformations, fetal growth restriction, and short long bones. The tool demonstrated moderate discriminatory ability with an AUC of 0.738 (95% CI 0.652-0.823) in the training set and 0.647 (95% CI 0.511-0.784) in the validation set. Calibration curves confirmed good agreement between predicted and observed outcomes. Rather than discovering new associations between USMs and chromosomal abnormalities, this tool simply converts established clinical knowledge into a user-friendly format that allows clinicians to objectively assess the need for amniocentesis in clinical practice.
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.