ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
A prospective study of non-invasive prenatal screening technology in preimplantation genetic testing cycles.
Article in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the role of NIPT 2.0 in prenatal screening among populations undergoing PGT. Methods: This study enrolled 113 patients who underwent NIPT 2.0 after 12 weeks of gestation at the Reproductive Medicine Center of Peking University Third Hospital between January 2024 and July 2025. Patients were categorized into PGT ( Results: 56 women underwent both NIPT 2.0 and IPT, with 100% concordance between tests. NIPT 2.0 results indicated low fetal genetic risk in all 113 pregnant women. Among these, 56 underwent IPT: (37 PGT,9 IVF,10 spontaneous pregnancy group), All 56 prenatal diagnosis results were negative. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in miscarriage rate, live birth rate, preterm birth rate, birth defect rate, or neonatal birth weight and length. Further subgroup analysis of PGT Groups showed no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between patients who underwent IPT and those who did not. Conclusion: NIPT 2.0 can serve as a prenatal screening method following PGT-assisted pregnancies. Whether it can replace invasive prenatal testing requires further in-depth research.
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.