Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 389

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

Non‐invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146 958 pregnancies

Open access
Zhang, H., Gao, Y., Jiang, F., Fu, M., Yuan, Y., Guo, Y., Zhu, Z., Lin, M., Liu, Q., Tian, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, F., Lau, T. K., Zhao, L., Yi, X., Yin, Y., Wang, W.·2015·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objectives: To report the clinical performance of massively parallel sequencing‐based non‐invasive prenatal testing ( NIPT ) in detecting trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in over 140 000 clinical samples and to compare its performance in low‐risk and high‐risk pregnancies. Methods: Between 1 January 2012 and 31 August 2013, 147 314 NIPT requests to screen for fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 using low‐coverage whole‐genome sequencing of plasma cell‐free DNA were received. The results were validated by karyotyping or follow‐up of clinical outcomes. Results: NIPT was performed and results obtained in 146 958 samples, for which outcome data were available in 112 669 (76.7%). Repeat blood sampling was required in 3213 cases and 145 had test failure. Aneuploidy was confirmed in 720/781 cases positive for trisomy 21, 167/218 cases positive for trisomy 18 and 22/67 cases positive for trisomy 13 on NIPT . Nine false negatives were identified, including six cases of trisomy 21 and three of trisomy 18. The overall sensitivity of NIPT was 99.17%, 98.24% and 100% for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, respectively, and specificity was 99.95%, 99.95% and 99.96% for trisomies 21, 18 and 13, respectively. There was no significant difference in test performance between the 72 382 high‐risk and 40 287 low‐risk subjects (sensitivity, 99.21% vs 98.97% ( P = 0.82); specificity, 99.95% vs 99.95% ( P = 0.98)). The major factors contributing to false‐positive and false‐negative NIPT results were maternal copy number variant and fetal/placental mosaicism, but fetal fraction had no effect. Conclusions: Using a stringent protocol, the good performance of NIPT shown by early validation studies can be maintained in large clinical samples. This technique can provide equally high sensitivity and specificity in screening for trisomy 21 in a low‐risk, as compared to high‐risk, population. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by 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/uog.14792

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 389

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, H., Gao, Y., Jiang, F., Fu, M., Yuan, Y., Guo, Y., Zhu, Z., Lin, M., Liu, Q., Tian, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, F., Lau, T. K., Zhao, L., Yi, X., Yin, Y., & Wang, W.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04-08
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
530-538
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W1583962399
Cited by
389
References
1
FWCI
44.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Non‐invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146 958 pregnancies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/uog.14792
The paper
Zhang, H., Gao, Y., Jiang, F., Fu, M., Yuan, Y., Guo, Y., Zhu, Z., Lin, M., Liu, Q., Tian, Z., Zhang, H., Chen, F., Lau, T. K., Zhao, L., Yi, X., Yin, Y., & Wang, W. (2015). Non‐invasive prenatal testing for trisomies 21, 18 and 13: clinical experience from 146 958 pregnancies. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14792

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.