ArticleScientific reports2026
Development and temporal validation of a multimodal post-test risk stratification model for pregnancies with abnormal prenatal findings.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop and temporally evaluate a multimodal post-test classification framework integrating prenatal imaging and genetic findings in pregnancies with abnormal prenatal findings. We retrospectively screened 826 pregnancies undergoing routine prenatal screening or diagnostic testing. After exclusion of 8 pregnancies with insufficient follow-up information and 72 with incomplete data on the final model predictors, 746 pregnancies were included in the final complete-case analysis, including a normal pregnancy group (n = 641) and an abnormal pregnancy group (n = 105). Clinical characteristics and testing results were compared between groups. According to the enrollment period, 546 pregnancies were used for model development and internal validation, and 200 pregnancies from the same institution during a later time period were used as a temporally separated internal validation cohort. Variables independently associated with abnormal pregnancy status classification were identified using multivariable logistic regression, and a nomogram was constructed. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Ultrasound abnormalities (OR = 74.36, 95% CI: 21.75-254.30), abnormal karyotypes (OR = 12.59, 95% CI: 5.55-28.56), and pathogenic CNVs (OR = 19.47, 95% CI: 9.35-40.54) were independently associated with abnormal pregnancy status classification within this post-test framework. The framework demonstrated favorable apparent classification performance, with AUCs of 0.917 (bootstrap 95% CI: 0.867-0.961) in the training set and 0.906 (bootstrap 95% CI: 0.822-0.977) in the testing set. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously because the included variables were closely related to the criteria used for outcome classification, which may have led to optimistic estimates of apparent performance. Calibration was acceptable, and DCA suggested potential net benefit across threshold probabilities of 0.05-0.85. In the temporally separated internal validation cohort, the framework achieved an AUC of 0.969 (95% CI: 0.918-1.000), with a sensitivity of 0.950 and a specificity of 0.972; however, this result should be interpreted within the context of a single-center post-test clinical workflow and requires further multicenter evaluation. The multimodal post-test classification framework integrating ultrasound, karyotype, and CNV findings showed favorable apparent classification performance in this cohort of pregnancies with abnormal prenatal findings. Its potential value lies in supporting structured post-test risk communication and multidisciplinary discussion, particularly in cases with complex or discordant prenatal findings. This framework should not be interpreted as a primary screening tool or as an independent predictor of the natural course of pregnancy. Further prospective multicenter evaluation is needed before broader clinical application.
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.