MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416114309 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-23344-w

Novel proof of concept assay for rapid, simplified non-invasive fetal RhD screening

2025· article· en· W4416114309 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Gekas, Suvi Parviainen, Lawrence Prensky, Marc‐André Rodrigue, Marie-Line Dubois, Capucine Gekas, Ville Veikkolainen

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsUniversité Sainte-AnneUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypingFetusCell-free fetal DNAPregnancyComplement (music)Polymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The RhD antigen is a key component of the Rh blood group system and is highly immunogenic, posing risks for RhD-negative pregnant women. While anti-D prophylaxis prevents maternal alloimmunization, concerns regarding availability, overuse, and universal effectiveness persist. Recent advances in non-invasive fetal RHD genotyping have shown potential to reduce unnecessary interventions. This study presents a new non-invasive fetal RhD screening method using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and dry chemistry quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) with fluorescence measurements of three RHD exons, aimed at enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of RHD genotyping and improving clinical decision-making. We evaluated this new method using cfDNA extracted from plasma samples of 28 RhD-negative women carrying singleton pregnancies. The 20µL cfDNA samples correctly identified all 18 RhD-positive pregnancies and 9/10 RhD-negative pregnancy samples. Our study provides proof of concept that the cfDNA and dry chemistry qPCR method for fetal RHD genotyping is feasible, as it achieved 100% sensitivity. Despite the small sample size, these findings support the use of RHD genotyping as a precise and effective alternative or complement to anti-D prophylaxis, offering improved risk management and care for pregnant women worldwide.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207