Optimization of NIPT Testing Timing and Fetal Anomaly Determination Models

Authors

  • Panlin Li
  • Ning Zhang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/ijphmr.v6n2.01

Keywords:

XGBoost, Sensitivity analysis, NIPT, Y chromosome

Abstract

This study explores optimization strategies for Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) timing and fetal anomaly detection through data-driven modeling. By analyzing over 1,600 NIPT cases, the research identifies maternal BMI and gestational age as major determinants of fetal fraction, a key factor influencing test accuracy. For male fetuses, Y chromosome concentration showed a positive correlation with gestational age (r=0.45) and a negative correlation with BMI (r=–0.32). An XGBoost regression model achieved robust performance (R²>0.7), highlighting weight and height as significant predictors. For female fetuses, a probabilistic model integrating Z-scores, GC content, read proportions, and BMI achieved >95% accuracy and <5% false-positive rate in detecting trisomies 21, 18, and 13. The study further proposes BMI-stratified testing windows—12, 14, and 16 weeks for low-, medium-, and high-BMI groups—to ensure sufficient fetal DNA concentration. These results emphasize the necessity of personalized NIPT timing and model-based optimization to reduce false negatives and enhance detection efficiency. Future integration of AI-driven prediction systems and hybrid cell-based testing may enable real-time, individualized prenatal screening with higher clinical applicability.

References

[1] Juul L A, Hartwig T S, Ambye L, et al. Noninvasive prenatal testing and maternal obesity: A review [J]. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2020, 99(6): 744-750.

[2] Artieri C G, Haverty C, Evans E A, et al. Noninvasive prenatal screening for patients with high body mass index: Evaluating the impact of a customized whole genome sequencing workflow on sensitivity and residual risk [J]. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2020, 40(3): 333-341.

[3] Yao H, Guo J, Wang J, et al. Factors Affecting the Fetal Fraction in Noninvasive Prenatal Screening: A Review [J]. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2022, 10: 812781.

[4] Johansen P, Richter S R, Balslev-Harder M, et al. Cell-based Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (cbNIPT) – A review on the current developments and future prospects [J]. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2023, 43(3): 316-328.

[5] van der Schoot V, Hoffmann C F, Page-Christiaens G C M L, et al. Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in Pregnancies Following Assisted Reproduction [J]. Diagnostics, 2023, 13(3): 443.

[6] Alberry M S, Aziz E, Ahmed S R, et al. Non Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT): Is Routine Testing for Sex Chromosome Aneuploidy Appropriate? [J]. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 2021, 43(1): 111-112.

[7] van Beek D M, Straver R, Weiss M M, et al. Comparing methods for fetal fraction determination and quality control of NIPT samples [J]. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2020, 40(7): 803-810.

[8] Welker N C, Lee A K, Kieke B A, et al. Noninvasive Prenatal Testing Using Fetal Fraction Enrichment—A Pilot Study [J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2024, 51(5): 114.

[9] Lindquist A, Hui L, Poulton A, et al. Combined first-trimester screening and invasive diagnostics for atypical chromosomal aberrations: A population-based study [J]. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2024, 63(4): 486-494.

[10] Lee C Y, Park M H, Cho H E, et al. KF-NIPT: K-mer and fetal fraction-based estimation of chromosomal anomaly in non-invasive prenatal testing [J]. BMC Bioinformatics, 2024, 25(1): 189.

Downloads

Published

28-02-2026

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Li, P., & Zhang, N. (2026). Optimization of NIPT Testing Timing and Fetal Anomaly Determination Models. International Journal of Public Health and Medical Research, 6(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.62051/ijphmr.v6n2.01