Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41150639›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Prevalence and phenotypic findings of pathogenic or likely pathogenic copy number variants in 10,537 pregnancies.

Shiwei Ren, Wenjing Gu, Ting Liu, Jinyan Yan, Haixin Dong, Chuchu Niu, Lizhu Guo, Huan Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Shiwei RenSchool of Clinical Medicine, Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.
Wenjing GuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.
Ting LiuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.
Jinyan YanDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.
Haixin DongDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.
Chuchu NiuSchool of Clinical Medicine, Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.
Lizhu GuoDepartment of Obstetrics, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.
Huan GuoDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, Jining, Shandong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0451-5688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathogenic and likely pathogenic copy number variations (p/lpCNVs) detected through chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) are crucial for understanding the etiology of birth defects. However, due to incomplete penetrance and variable phenotypic expression, the intrauterine phenotypic characteristics and genotype-phenotype correlations of these variations remain unclear. Therefore, this study aims to explore the prevalence and clinical implications of p/lpCNVs in a large cohort of pregnant women. METHODS AND

findingsThis study retrospectively analyzed 10,537 prenatal diagnostic cases from 2013 to 2022 at the Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University. All pregnant women underwent amniocentesis and chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Cases were divided into two groups: the CMA group (194 cases) and the karyotype analysis group (259 cases), based on whether CNVs could be detected by traditional karyotype analysis. The primary study outcomes included the incidence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic CNVs, the distribution of variations in specific chromosomal regions, and the correlation between these variations and clinical phenotypes (e.g., cardiovascular abnormalities, developmental delays). Statistical analyses were performed using the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Among 7,663 amniocentesis CMA cases, 453 cases of pathogenic or likely pathogenic CNVs were identified, with 194 cases in the CMA group and 259 cases in the karyotype analysis group. Specific chromosomal regions, such as 22q11.21 and 16p13.11, were associated with clinical phenotypes such as cardiovascular abnormalities and developmental delays. The incidence of pathogenic CNVs was higher in pregnant women with polyhydramnios and those conceived via assisted reproductive technology (ART). The main limitation of this study is the lack of long-term follow-up data on the clinical outcomes of pathogenic CNVs.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates for the first time that chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is superior to traditional karyotype analysis in high-risk pregnancies, especially in those with a single clinical indication, by more effectively detecting small copy number variations. Pathogenic CNVs are more likely to cause structural abnormalities, highlighting the stronger association between pathogenic variations and significant phenotypic consequences. Our data also suggest that factors such as assisted reproductive technology (ART) and polyhydramnios may be associated with the occurrence of p/lpCNVs. Future research should focus on clarifying the genotype-phenotype correlations of p/lpCNVs and exploring the potential impact of ART on genetic variations. Long-term longitudinal studies will help deepen the understanding of these variations' long-term effects on maternal and fetal health, ultimately improving prenatal diagnostics and genetic counseling.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsAdultAmniocentesisChromosome AberrationsFemaleHumansKaryotypingMicroarray AnalysisPhenotypePregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisPrevalenceRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID41150639
PMCPMC12561929

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.