3.9 Article

What are the predominant parameters for Down's syndrome risk estimation in first- trimester screening: a data mining study

出版社

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/tjb-2022-0004

关键词

data mining; first trimester Down Syndrome (DS) risk analyses; free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG beta); nuchal translucency (NT); pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A PAPP-A

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used multiple regression analysis techniques to evaluate the effect size of each parameter in first trimester Down Syndrome risk analysis. The results showed that PAPP-A levels, NT levels, DS story, and hCG beta levels affect the first trimester risk analysis results.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effect size of each parameter used in the first trimester Down Syndrome (DS) risk analyses by using multiple regression analysis techniques. Methods: This data mining study included data of 44,260 pregnant women screened at the Acibadem Labmed laboratories from 2010 to 2019. In this study, risk was calculated using the PRISCA software on the basis of nuchal translucency (NT), crown-rump length measurement, in vitro fertilization application, diabetes mellitus, Down Syndrome story, smoking, maternal age, and the level of maternal serum biochemistry markers including pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A) and free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG beta). Results: Forty-four thousand two hundred sixty risk analysis patients result data were re-investigate, and 851 (1.93%) risk analysis results were found as positive. PAPP-A 747 (CI%, 476-1,170) times, NT value 512 (CI%, 343-764) times, DS story 21 times (CI%, 6.7-63.2) and hCG beta value 7.01 (CI%, 6.31-7.79) times affect the combined first-trimester risk analysis results. Conclusions: We have suggested that those accurate PAPP-A levels and NT levels evaluation are the most critical point of combined risk analysis and that the risk of free hCG beta levels after PAPP-A is essential as a biochemical test.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据