ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2025
The accuracy and real resolution of karyotyping technique in detecting chromosomal aberrations identified by molecular genetic methods.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advancing Prenatal Diagnosis: From Conventional Karyotyping to Genome-Wide CNV Analysis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although karyotyping technology has been implemented in genetic diagnosis for a long time, the comprehensive understanding of this technology is still limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and resolution of karyotyping method in detecting chromosomal abnormalities by molecular genetic method. In this study, we conducted a retrospective analysis of embryonic molecular karyotypes and peripheral blood cytogenetic karyotypes from patients with balanced chromosomal rearrangements undergoing preimplantation genetic testing at our reproductive center. Blood karyotyping was performed using routine G-banding at the 400-band resolution by two well-trained technicians. The embryonic molecular karyotypes were detected using either high-throughput sequencing or single nucleotide polymorphism microarray method. We compared the breakpoint locations, determined by unbalanced rearrangements, in the embryonic molecular karyotypes with the corresponding rearranged chromosome bands in the peripheral blood karyotypes. A total of 508 cases were enrolled and 2078 embryos were detected, 404 cases were analyzed finally. We found that only 39.32% (289/735) of embryonic molecular breakpoints were located within the rearranged bands identified by peripheral blood karyotyping, while the remaining 60.68% (446/735) fell outside these regions. Our results showed only 73 cases exhibited accurate karyotyping results, indicating an accuracy rate of 18.07%. Furthermore, the average resolution of karyotyping technique was found to be approximately 9.01 megabases (Mb) pairs. These findings provide profound insight into the accuracy and resolution of karyotyping techniques, which can contribute to more precise genetic counseling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40879815What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.