BMI-Stratified Mixed-Effects Modeling of Fetal DNA Fraction for NIPT Timing Optimization and Ensemble-Based Female Fetal

Authors

  • Jiaqi Liu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/egrfse04

Keywords:

Non-invasive prenatal testing, Mixed-effects model, BMI grouping, Optimal testing timing, RUSBoost, Multivariate Gaussian discriminant analysis

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has gained widespread clinical adoption as an efficient and precise method for screening fetal chromosomal abnormalities. However, there remains room for optimization in balancing the timing of testing with diagnostic accuracy. This study employs multilevel modeling of clinical data from 267 pregnant women to propose a personalized testing timing optimization strategy based on multiple factors, including fetal cell-free DNA concentration and maternal body mass index (BMI). Using a mixed-effects model, we analyzed the relationship between BMI, gestational age, GC content, and fetal Y chromosome concentration, thereby establishing a predictive framework for optimal testing timing across different BMI groups. Experimental results indicate optimal testing timepoints of 10.0 weeks for low-BMI groups, 13.0 weeks for moderate-BMI groups, and 15.8 weeks for high-BMI groups. Compared to conventional methods, the model enables testing 3 to 6 weeks earlier. For determining chromosomal abnormalities in female fetuses, integrating multivariate Gaussian discriminant analysis with the RUSBoost ensemble learning algorithm successfully enhanced detection sensitivity and accuracy. Particularly when combining Z-scores with GC content, the approach effectively distinguished between normal and abnormal fetuses. Comprehensive analysis indicates this study provides scientific evidence for personalized optimization of NIPT testing timing and accurate diagnosis of chromosomal abnormalities in female fetuses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] D. Pratella et al., “GenomeMixer and TRUST: Novel bioinformatics tools to improve reliability of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) for fetal aneuploidies,” Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, vol. 20, no. Compendex, pp. 1028–1035, 2022.

[2] M. Calcagno et al., “Nanoparticle-Enhanced Surface Plasmon Resonance Imaging Enables the Ultrasensitive Detection of Non-Amplified Cell-Free Fetal DNA for Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 94, no. Compendex, pp. 1118–1125, 2022.

[3] R. SHREE et al., “Low fetal fraction in obese women at first trimester cell-free DNA based prenatal screening is not accompanied by differences in total cell-free DNA,” Prenat Diagn, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 1277–1286, Sep. 2021.

[4] “Obesity and no call results: optimal timing of cell-free DNA testing and redraw,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 225, no. 4, p. 417.e1-417.e10, Oct. 2021.

[5] D. Muzzey, J. D. Goldberg, and C. Haverty, “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,” Prenat Diagn, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 333–341, Feb. 2020.

[6] J. Lee et al., “Development and performance evaluation of an artificial intelligence algorithm using cell-free DNA fragment distance for non-invasive prenatal testing (aiD-NIPT),” Front Genet, vol. 13, p. 999587, Nov. 2022.

[7] D. Muzzey, J. D. Goldberg, and C. Haverty, “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,” Prenat Diagn, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 333–341, Feb. 2020.

[8] Q. Huang, Q. Xu, M. Chen, W. Fan, and H. Huang, “Application of non-invasive prenatal testing for fetal chromosomal disorders in low-risk pregnancies: a follow-up study in central China,” Front. Genet., vol. 16, Jun. 2025.

Downloads

Published

16-12-2025

Issue

Section

Articles