Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fetal gender and aneuploidy detection using fetal cells in maternal blood: analysis of NIFTY I data

Bianchi, D. W., Simpson, J. L., Jackson, L. G., Elias, S., Holzgreve, W., Evans, M. I., Dukes, K. A., Sullivan, L. M., Klinger, K. W., Bischoff, F. Z., Hahn, S., Johnson, K. L., Lewis, D., Wapner, R. J., Cruz, F. de la·2002·Prenatal Diagnosis

Abstract

Objectives: The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Fetal Cell Isolation Study (NIFTY) is a prospective, multicenter clinical project to develop non‐invasive methods of prenatal diagnosis. The initial objective was to assess the utility of fetal cells in the peripheral blood of pregnant women to diagnose or screen for fetal chromosome abnormalities. Methods: Results of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis on interphase nuclei of fetal cells recovered from maternal blood were compared to metaphase karyotypes of fetal cells obtained by amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS). After the first 5 years of the study we performed a planned analysis of the data. We report here the data from 2744 fully processed pre‐procedural blood samples; 1292 samples were from women carrying singleton male fetuses. Results: Target cell recovery and fetal cell detection were better using magnetic‐based separation systems (MACS) than with flow‐sorting (FACS). Blinded FISH assessment of samples from women carrying singleton male fetuses found at least one cell with an X and Y signal in 41.4% of cases (95% CI: 37.4%, 45.5%). The false‐positive rate of gender detection was 11.1% (95% CI: 6.1,16.1%). This was higher than expected due to the use of indirectly labeled FISH probes in one center. The detection rate of finding at least one aneuploid cell in cases of fetal aneuploidy was 74.4% (95% CI: 76.0%, 99.0%), with a false‐positive rate estimated to be between 0.6% and 4.1%. Conclusions: The sensitivity of aneuploidy detection using fetal cell analysis from maternal blood is comparable to single marker prenatal serum screening, but technological advances are needed before fetal cell analysis has clinical application as part of a multiple marker method for non‐invasive prenatal screening. The limitations of the present study, i.e. multiple processing protocols, are being addressed in the ongoing study. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pd.347

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 347

Metadata

Authors
Bianchi, D. W., Simpson, J. L., Jackson, L. G., Elias, S., Holzgreve, W., Evans, M. I., Dukes, K. A., Sullivan, L. M., Klinger, K. W., Bischoff, F. Z., Hahn, S., Johnson, K. L., Lewis, D., Wapner, R. J., & Cruz, F. D. L.
Venue
Prenatal Diagnosis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-05-31
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
609-615
ISSN
  • 0197-3851 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0223
OpenAlex
W2085959899
Cited by
347
References
1
FWCI
19.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.