ArticleFrontiers in genetics2026
Copy number variants in fetuses with non-structural ultrasound abnormalities among pregnant women without adverse pregnancy history.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze fetal copy number variants (CNVs) in pregnant women without adverse pregnancy history whose fetuses presented non-structural ultrasound abnormalities, and explore the correlations between CNVs status, ultrasonic phenotypes and maternal age. Methods: A total of 426 pregnant women without adverse pregnancy history were consecutively recruited prospectively, followed by retrospective data analysis. Participants were divided into <35 years (n = 368) and ≥35 years (n = 58) groups. All fetuses were classified by types of non-structural ultrasound abnormalities. Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) was used to detect pathogenic/likely pathogenic CNVs (P/LP CNVs) and variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Subgroup comparisons of CNV detection rates were performed. Results: Abnormal ultrasound soft markers were the most common manifestation (83.1%), followed by fetal growth restriction (12.2%) and abnormal amniotic fluid volume (4.2%). The overall detection rates of P/LP CNVs and VUS were 4.5% and 9.2%, respectively. The detection rates of P/LP CNVs and VUS in fetuses with abnormal ultrasound soft-markers were 3.4% and 9.6%, respectively. Both the detection rates of P/LP CNVs and VUS reached 9.6% in fetal growth restriction fetuses. The detection rate of P/LP CNVs was 5.6% in fetuses with abnormal amniotic fluid volume, whereas no VUS was detected. CNVs detection rates varied greatly among different soft markers: the detection rate was highest in fetuses with renal pelvic dilatation (33.3%, 5/15), followed by short long bones (17.9%, 5/28) and increased NT thickness (14.3%, 17/119). There were no significant differences in P/LP CNVs ( Conclusion: Fetal CNVs vary substantially across different non-structural ultrasound abnormalities in low-risk pregnancies. Fetal growth restriction and several ultrasound soft markers are associated with elevated CNVs risks. Maternal age has no significant impact on fetal CNVs detection. Stratified risk assessment and individualized management are recommended for this population.
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.