MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prenatal cell-free DNA screening for chromosomal aneuploidies after euploid embryo transfer shows high concordance with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy results and low positive predictive values

2024· article· en· W4401053505 on OpenAlexaff
Mitko Madjunkov, Prati Sharma, Ari Baratz, Karen Glass, Rina Abramov, N. Logan, Svetlana Madjunkova, Clifford Librach

Bibliographic record

VenueFertility and Sterility · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility CentreSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceAneuploidyEmbryoBiologyGenetic testingAndrologyPloidyEmbryo transferCell-free fetal DNAGeneticsPrenatal diagnosisObstetricsPregnancyMedicineFetusChromosomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) of prenatal cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for chromosomal aneuploidies in pregnancies achieved either after single euploid transfer in in vitro fertilization or Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles or transfer of single untested embryo, and to assess the concordance of prenatal-cfDNA-screening and PGT-A results. DESIGN: Single center retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Fertility clinic. PATIENT(S): A total of 2,973 prenatal-cfDNA-screening results for the most common trisomies (T13, T18, T21, X, and Y) and microdeletions (1p36, 4p16.3, 5p15.2, 15q11.2, and 22q11.2) from singleton pregnancies allocated into two groups: PGT-A group (n = 1,204) pregnant after single euploid transfer and non-PGT-A group (n = 1769) pregnant after transfer of single untested embryo, between 2016 and 2023. INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of prenatal-cfDNA screening. Positive and negative prenatal-cfDNA-screening results and subsequent prenatal or postnatal diagnostic testing were used to classify each positive prenatal-cfDNA-screening result as a true or a false positive. Secondary endpoints were to evaluate the concordance of PGT-A and prenatal-cfDNA-screening results and to assess the differences in the fetal fraction of cfDNA used for prenatal-cfDNA-screening reports between the study groups. RESULT(S): Prenatal-cfDNA screening was performed at a mean 11.3 ± 1.8 weeks gestational age, and yielded results in 99.9% of the patients (0.1% cancellation rate). There was no difference in the fetal fraction between PGT-A tested and not tested pregnancies (9.5% ± 4% vs. 10.3% ± 4%). 13 positive prenatal-cfDNA-screening results (two T21, two X0, four XXX, one XYY, one indeterminate sex, two 22q11 del/dup, and one 15q11.2del) were received for PGT-A group. Only one (22q11 dup) was confirmed with amniocentesis and fetal autopsy, giving a PPV for an abnormal prenatal-cfDNA screening of 7.7%, the rest had results concordant with PGT-A. Sex chromosomes were 100% concordant between prenatal-cfDNA-screening and PGT-A results, giving a 100% PPV for PGT-A for sex chromosomes and 100% negative predictive value for aneuploidies. Positive prenatal-cfDNA-screening results were received for 27 pregnancies from untested embryos (1.5%), follow-up testing was electively performed for 21, and 8 had confirmed the prenatal-cfDNA-screening result, giving a PPV for the non-PGT-A group of 38%. CONCLUSION(S): This study demonstrates that patients undergoing in vitro fertilization/PGT-A and single euploid embryo transfer can reliably do prenatal-cfDNA screening during their first trimester. Fetal fraction in singleton pregnancies after PGT-A tested embryos is not different from pregnancies with untested embryos. Positive predictive value for an abnormal prenatal-cfDNA-screening result after euploid embryo transfer was reassuringly low (7.7%). PGT-A reliably selects against aneuploidy with 100% concordance with fetal sex.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFertility and SterilitySame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207