Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Donor-Oocyte Pregnancies: Biological Determinants, Algorithmic Limitations and Clinical Implications

8 Aug 2026

Abstract excerpt

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) based on circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has transformed prenatal screening for common aneuploidies, but its interpretation is less straightforward in pregnancies conceived with donor oocytes. In this setting, fetal chromosomal risk is largely donor-driven, whereas cfDNA interpretability is shaped mainly by the recipient and the placenta. Donor-oocyte pregnancies are...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Share to Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Share to Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Source

Identifiers

PMID: 42570189
DOI: 10.1007/s40291-026-00866-1

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 8 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in Donor-Oocyte Pregnancies: Biological Determinants, Algorithmic Limitations and Clinical ImplicationsPMID 42570189Read ↗

Factors Affecting the Fetal Fraction in Noninvasive Prenatal Screening: A ReviewSemantic proximity Read ↗

Non-intuitive trends of fetal fraction development related to gestational age and fetal gender, and their practical implications for non-invasive prenatal testingSemantic proximity Read ↗

The importance of determining the limit of detection of non‐invasive prenatal testing methodsSemantic proximity Read ↗

Classification of factors involved in nonreportable results of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and prediction of success rate of second NIPTSemantic proximity Read ↗

Performance of non‐invasive prenatal testing when fetal cell‐free <scp>DNA</scp> is absentSemantic proximity Read ↗

Sequencing shorter cfDNA fragments improves the fetal DNA fraction in noninvasive prenatal testingSemantic proximity Read ↗

Genetic deconvolution of fetal and maternal cell-free DNA in maternal plasma enables next-generation non-invasive prenatal screeningSemantic proximity Read ↗

cfDNA screening and diagnosis of monogenic disorders – where are we heading?Semantic proximity Read ↗

Fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in pregnancies after fresh or frozen embryo transfer following assisted reproductive technologiesSemantic proximity Read ↗

Bioinformatics Approaches for Fetal DNA Fraction Estimation in Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Integration of Noninvasive DNA Testing for Aneuploidy into Prenatal Care: What Has Happened Since the Rubber Met the Road?Semantic proximity Read ↗

Validation of a Non-invasive Prenatal Test for Fetal RhD, C, c, E, Kell and FyA Antigens.Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.