ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2026
Genetic Evaluation and Pregnancy Outcomes in Foetuses With Overgrowth at a Tertiary Referral Center.
Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fetal overgrowth is defined as one or more biometric parameters exceeding the 90th-97th percentile or 2 standard deviations above the mean for gestational age. This study aimed to evaluate genetic findings in foetuses diagnosed with sonographic overgrowth. We retrospectively analysed 78 singleton pregnancies that underwent invasive prenatal diagnosis between 2018 and 2024. Fetal overgrowth was defined based on biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), and/or abdominal circumference (AC), and cases were categorized into three groups according to the pattern of enlargement: head enlargement (Group A, n = 49), abdominal enlargement (Group B, n = 12), and combined head and abdominal enlargement (Group C, n = 17). All foetuses underwent conventional karyotyping and single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis, and were further classified as isolated or non-isolated based on the presence of additional ultrasound findings. Chromosomal abnormalities were identified in 2 cases (2.6%) by karyotyping, including mosaic 47,XYY/45,X and 46,X,add(X)(p22)/45,X, while SNP array detected copy number variants involving chromosome 11 in 2 additional cases, one likely pathogenic and one variant of uncertain significance. Notably, all chromosomal abnormalities were observed in the non-isolated overgrowth group. Overall, 12 cases (15.4%) were classified as isolated and 66 (84.6%) as non-isolated. Associated ultrasound findings included structural anomalies in 18 cases, non-structural abnormalities in 12 cases, soft markers in 28 cases, and multiple coexisting abnormalities in 20 cases. Ventriculomegaly was the most common structural anomaly, particularly among foetuses with head enlargement, while polyhydramnios was the most frequent non-structural finding. Follow-up data were available for 76 cases, with 8 pregnancies resulting in stillbirth or termination and 68 in live births. Foetuses with combined head and abdominal enlargement had a significantly higher incidence of macrosomia compared with those with isolated head or abdominal enlargement (29.4% vs. 4.3% and 8.3%, respectively; p = 0.015). In conclusion, fetal overgrowth is predominantly non-isolated, and chromosomal abnormalities are mainly observed in this subgroup. Concurrent head and abdominal enlargement is associated with increased risks of structural anomalies and macrosomia. Prenatal genetic testing and macrosomia-specific management should be considered for head-abdominal enlargement foetuses.
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.