English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objective. The aim of this study was to determine if the use of different mappers for NIPT may vary the results considerably. Methods. Peripheral blood was collected from 217 pregnant women, 58 pathological (34 pregnancies with trisomy 21, 18 with trisomy 18, and 6 with trisomy 13) and 159 euploid. MPS was performed following a manufacturer’s modified protocol of semiconductor sequencing. Obtained reads were mapped with two different software programs: TMAP and HPG-Aligner, comparing the results. Results. Using TMAP, 57 pathological samples were correctly detected (sensitivity 98.28%, specificity 93.08%): 33 samples as trisomy 21 (sensitivity 97.06%, specificity 99.45%), 16 as trisomy 18 (sensibility 88.89%, specificity 93.97%), and 6 as trisomy 13 (sensibility 100%, specificity 100%). 11 false positives, 1 false negative, and 2 samples incorrectly identified were obtained. Using HPG-Aligner, all the 58 pathological samples were correctly identified (sensibility 100%, specificity 96.86%): 34 as trisomy 21 (sensibility 100%, specificity 98.91%), 18 as trisomy 18 (sensibility 100%, specificity 98.99%), and 6 as trisomy 13 (sensibility 100%, specificity 99.53%). 5 false positives were obtained. Conclusion. Different mappers use slightly different algorithms, so the use of one mapper or another with the same batch file can provide different results.

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: Comparison of Two Mappers and Influence in the Diagnostic Yield