Optimizing the Timing of Male Fetal NIPT Testing: A Model Based on Linear Regression, Survival Analysis, and Monte Carlo Simulation

Authors

  • Xinyu Wang
  • Ruoxi Zhou
  • Honghua Zhan
  • Lingjie Liu
  • Lu Li

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/zg2b9c41

Keywords:

Non-invasive prenatal testing, Y-chromosome concentration, K-means clustering, Monte Carlo simulation.

Abstract

The accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is significantly influenced by gestational age and maternal body mass index (BMI), and individual variability makes a single standardized testing time suboptimal for both sensitivity and specificity. In this study, a univariate linear regression model was developed based on fetal Y-chromosome concentration data to examine its association with gestational age and BMI, revealing significant positive correlations for both factors (p < 0.01). Subsequently, K-means clustering combined with survival analysis was employed to stratify pregnant individuals into three BMI groups. Optimal testing times were estimated at 13.71, 15.14, and 19.57 weeks, respectively, using Kaplan-Meier curves, with the Log-rank test confirming significant intergroup differences. Accounting for assay variability, Monte Carlo simulation suggested a delay of 0.5–1 week in testing. Furthermore, incorporating maternal age and parity into a multivariate integrated model revealed that individuals with low BMI and prior delivery history could be tested earlier, whereas those with high BMI and no prior delivery required later testing. After optimization, recommended gestational ages were adjusted later by 0.12–0.15 weeks. Notably, in parous individuals with BMI ranging from 27.7 to 33.8, the testing time increased from 13.86 to 15.26 weeks, achieving a success rate of 84.48%.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Norton, M. E., Jacobsson, B., & Edmonds, J. K. Noninvasive prenatal testing: current and future applications in clinical practice[J]. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2023, 141(4): 767-781

[2] Gil, M. M., Quezada, M. S., Revello, R., Akolekar, R., & Nicolaides, K. H. Maternal body mass index and cell-free DNA screening test failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 57(4): 553-563.

[3] Benn, P., & Chapman, M. Non-invasive prenatal testing for trisomy 21: the importance of adjusting for maternal age and gestational age[J]. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2022, 42(8): 983-990.

[4] Jiaxin Li, Yuan Wei, Yangyu Zhao. Progress in non-invasive prenatal testing failure due to less cell-free fetal DNA [J]. Chinese Journal of Perinatal Medicine,2019,22(1):30-34.

[5] Pengyu Chen, Quanfu Zhang. Advances in the Influencing Factors and Clinical Application of Fetal Fraction of the Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing [J]. Advances in Clinical Medicine,2024(10):1183.

[6] Gazdarica J, Forgacova N, Sladecek T, et al. Insights into non-informative results from non-invasive prenatal screening through gestational age, maternal BMI, and age analyses[J]. PLOS ONE,2024, 19(3): e0280858.

[7] Duboc N, Smith M,Jones R, et al. NiPTUNE: A Bioinformatics Pipeline for Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing of Fetal Aneuploidy[J]. Briefings in Bioinformatics,2024,23(1): bbab380.

[8] Benn P, Borrell A, Chiu R W K, et al. Timing of cell-free DNA screening for aneuploidy: when is the optimal window? [J]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2021, 224(1): 33-43.

[9] Srinivasan A, Bianchi D W, Huang H, et al. Serial measurements of fetal fraction in cell-free DNA from maternal plasma: implications for non-invasive prenatal testing[J]. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2021, 41(4): 467-474.

[10] van Beek E,de Vries M, Oepkes D, et al. Quality Control of Fetal Fraction Measurement in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing[J]. Prenatal Diagnosis,2017,37(10):987-994.

Downloads

Published

17-04-2026

How to Cite

Optimizing the Timing of Male Fetal NIPT Testing: A Model Based on Linear Regression, Survival Analysis, and Monte Carlo Simulation. (2026). Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology, 162, 496-507. https://doi.org/10.54097/zg2b9c41