ArticleHuman genomics2025
Fetal fractions mediate the association between total cell-free DNA and preeclampsia risk in a non-invasive prenatal testing cohort.
Article in Human genomics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT)-derived total cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and fetal fractions (FFs) are potential indicators of placental dysfunction, a hallmark of preeclampsia (PE). However, their clinical utility in PE risk stratification, particularly in twin pregnancies, remains underexplored. This study evaluated the association between total cfDNA levels and the incidence of PE and assessed mediation by FFs.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 2,366 pregnant women who underwent NIPT at 12-22 weeks of gestation at a tertiary hospital. Total cfDNA levels and FFs were extracted from the NIPT data, and PE diagnoses were confirmed via medical records. Logistic regression and mediation analyses were used to assess associations and mediating effects.
resultsPE prevalence was 3.51% (83/2,366). Elevated total cfDNA tertiles (T2/T3 vs. T1) were associated with increased rates of PE (T2: OR = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.16-4.80; T3: OR = 3.00, 95% CI: 1.51-5.97). Each 1 µg/L increase in total cfDNA was associated with a 12% increase in PE odds (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20). Lower FFs were associated with PE risk (T1 vs. T3: OR = 2.70, 95% CI: 1.45-5.00; per 1% decrease: OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.07-1.23). In singleton pregnancies, total cfDNA levels ≤ 4.41 µg/L were significantly associated with increased PE risk (OR = 2.89, 95% CI: 1.32-6.29, P = 0.008) with a validated threshold effect [log-likelihood ratio test (LRT, P = 0.005)], while FF ≤ 8.86% showed a protective trend (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68-0.97, P = 0.021) despite a nonsignificant LRT (P = 0.192). In twin pregnancies, total cfDNA showed no significant threshold or linear association with PE risk (OR = 1.06, P = 0.382; LRT, P = 0.215), while FFs exhibited a stronger inverse linear association (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.92, P = 0.003) with no significant threshold effect (LRT, P = 0.270). Total cfDNA was inversely correlated with FFs (T3 vs. T1: β=-2.96, 95% CI: -3.34 to -2.59). Mediation analyses showed FFs partially explained 24.4% and 32.5% of the total cfDNA-PE relationship in singleton pregnancies and all pregnancies, respectively.
conclusionThis study observed that elevated total cfDNA levels during NIPT were associated with an increased risk of PE, with FFs acting as partial mediators. These findings warrant further investigation into total cfDNA and FFs as potential biomarkers for early PE risk stratification, even in high-risk settings such as twin pregnancies, to determine whether their use in screening could contribute to the development of strategies aimed at improving maternal-fetal health.
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.