ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2026
Chromosomal abnormalities and copy number variations in fetuses with ventriculomegaly: a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to analyze chromosomal characteristics and copy number variations (CNVs) in fetuses with ventriculomegaly (VM), thereby comparing genetic features between the isolated VM group and the non-isolated VM. Simultaneously evaluate the efficacy of karyotyping and CNV analysis in prenatal diagnosis of fetuses with VM.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included 78 fetuses diagnosed with VM at the Prenatal Diagnosis Center, National Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Clinical Genetics Center, Hanoi Medical University Hospital, and the Prenatal Diagnosis Center, Hanoi Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital from January 2023 to December 2024. Genetic testing methods included conventional karyotyping and CNV analysis.
resultsChromosomal abnormalities were detected in 14.1% (11/78) of cases by karyotyping, while CNVs were identified in 17.9% (14/78). CNVs were significantly more frequent in the non-isolated VM group compared to the isolated group (29.4% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.02). Both methods concordantly detected six cases of aneuploidy. Three cases of microdeletions/duplications were detected by CNV analysis, while karyotyping revealed no abnormalities. An additional four cases with chromosomal structural abnormalities detected by karyotyping had their deletion/duplication segments precisely characterized for size and location through CNV analysis.
conclusionGenetic testing using amniotic fluid samples should be considered an essential component in the prenatal diagnostic approach to VM. Non-isolated VMs exhibit significantly higher CNV risk than isolated VMs. CNV analysis enhances diagnostic efficacy for genetic abnormalities compared to karyotyping, while simultaneously facilitating genetic variant classification, thereby providing more detailed information for prognostic assessment. The combined approach of karyotyping and CNV analysis improves the detection rate of genetic abnormalities, supporting enhanced genetic counseling and superior pregnancy management.
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.