A Study on Optimal NIPT Timing and Fetal Anomaly Detection Based on Multi-Model Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/t4kbdx31Keywords:
NIPT, Multi-Model Approach, Optimal Timing, Fetal Anomaly Detection.Abstract
The accuracy of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) critically depends on selecting the optimal testing time point, which is influenced by maternal factors such as gestational week and Body Mass Index (BMI). This paper develops a comprehensive modeling framework to address two key challenges: optimizing NIPT timing for male fetuses and accurately detecting chromosomal abnormalities in female fetuses. A quadratic polynomial regression model is established to quantify the relationship between Y-chromosome concentration, gestational week, and BMI. To determine the optimal NIPT time point, K-Means clustering is integrated with a logistic regression-based risk prediction model, which minimizes a composite risk function. For the classification of fetal anomalies in females, a fusion model combining Random Forest and Logistic Regression is proposed. The results demonstrate that Y-chromosome concentration exhibits a weak but statistically significant positive correlation with gestational week and a negative correlation with BMI. The risk optimization model identifies distinct optimal NIPT timings for different maternal BMI and age groups. The fusion classification model achieves an accuracy of 0.9505, a precision of 0.8235, a recall of 0.7000, and an F1-score of 0.7570, with an optimal fusion weight of 0.67 and a decision threshold of 0.4459. This study provides a robust theoretical framework and actionable recommendations for personalized NIPT scheduling and diagnosis in clinical practice.
Downloads
References
[1] James G, Witten D, Hastie T, et al. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R[M]. New York: Springer, 2021.
[2] National Health Commission of the PRC. Technical specifications for non-invasive prenatal screening and diagnosis: WS/T 662-2020[S]. Beijing: Standards Press of China, 2020.
[3] Breiman L. Random Forests[J]. Machine Learning, 2021, 45(1): 5-32.
[4] Hosmer D W, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression[M]. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2023.
[5] Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python[J]. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2021, 12: 2825-2830.
[6] Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves[J]. BMC Bioinformatics, 2021, 12: 77.
[7] Youden W J. Index for rating diagnostic tests[J]. Cancer, 2023, 3(1): 32-35.
[8] Hartwell K, Pagnamenta E, Stojanovik V, et al. The Power of Partnership: Adapting Early Language Intervention for Children with Down Syndrome Through Family-Researcher Collaboration[J]. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2025, 60(6): e70139.
[9] Kong X, Zhang L, Yang R, et al. Reasons for failure of noninvasive prenatal test for cell‐free fetal DNA in maternal peripheral blood[J]. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine, 2024, 12(1): e2351.
[10] Liao C, Zhengfeng X, Zhang K. DNA Sequencing versus Standard Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening[J]. The New England Journal of Medicine, 2024, 371(6): 577-578.
[11] Yamamoto K, Suzumori N, Miura K, et al. Clinical Implications of Low Cell-Free DNA Fetal Fraction in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 40,716 Pregnancies[J]. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2025.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.







