Reducing False Positives in Prenatal Genetic Screenings

Prenatal testing is worrisome enough, now researchers have discovered a simple reason for many inaccurate results.

Image via pixabay user Skitterphoto

Prenatal screening in its present form is a developing technology, constantly being spurred onward by the demands of curious expectant mothers worldwide. What mothers may not realize is that while low-risk testing for abnormalities may be more credible than, say, a horoscope, sometimes the results can be unreliable.

Designed to determine the probability, or the risk, of a baby being born with certain genetic abnormalities that may lead to defects or disabilities like Down’s Syndrome, screening tests have been plagued since inception by the issue of false positives. No doctor, computer, blood, or urine sample can predict with absolute authority whether a baby will emerge healthy or not, and mothers are understandably hesitant to gamble on the life and health of their newborn.

According to researchers at the University of Washington in a study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the accuracy of prenatal tests may be compromised if the pregnant mother’s genome contains abnormalities in the usual number of specific DNA segments. In a way, however, every woman’s chromosomes develop uniquely.

"The approach used in the screening tests assumes that every woman carries the same proportion of genetic material on a given chromosome," explained the researchers in the study.

In reality, the idea of a “normal” set of chromosomes is arbitrary. Chromosomes vary slightly in composition and size from person to person, and the body sometimes deletes and duplicates certain regions of certain genomes as it sees fit. Longer chromosomes are subjected to this process more often than shorter chromosomes, and these longer chromosomes are sometimes the culprits that trigger a false positive result during screening.

A maternal duplication of a genome effectively increases the length of a chromosome on which it resides, potentially resulting in the false reading of an additional chromosome. Image via Wikimedia Commons

Modern prenatal genetic screens analyze the mother’s blood during pregnancy, which is a safer and less invasive alternative than sampling the fluid surrounding the fetus in the uterus. These blood tests are routinely offered to pregnant women of an older age, who are at greater risk of bearing a child with certain genetic abnormalities. The likelihood of a false positive increases as the pregnancy progresses, as well as with increasing maternal age. Screenings done between 10 and 18 weeks of pregnancy result in a 5 percent chance of false positives, which jumps up to 10-15 percent in screenings done between weeks 18 and 22.

“Currently, the causes of false positive results are poorly understood,” the researchers noted in the study. “Once you’re aware of the problem, you’re obligated to address it.”

Once the problem is properly identified, addressing it can be as simple as anticipating the extra genomes that will show up on tests and adjusting the results to account for it.

False positive screening results can have a profound psychological effect on an expectant mother, and may lead to unnessecary, riskier further testing. A better understanding of what causes false positives could save pregnant women and their families months of anxiety and uncertainty.

via David Leavitt / Twitter

Anyone who has ever worked in retail knows that the worst thing about the job, right after the pay, are the unreasonable cheapskates who "want to talk to your manager" to get some money off an item.

They think that throwing a tantrum will save them a few bucks and don't care if they completely embarrass themselves in the process. Sometimes that involves belittling the poor employee who's just trying to get through their day with an ounce of dignity.

Twitter is rallying around a gal named Tori who works at a Target in Massachusetts after she was tweet-shamed by irate chapekate, journalist, and Twitter troll, David Leavitt.

Keep Reading

Childbirth is the number one reason American women visit the hospital, and it ain't cheap. In fact, it's getting more and more expensive. A new study published in Health Affairs found that the cost of having a baby with employer-sponsored health insurance increased by almost 50% in the past seven years.

The study evaluated "trends in cost-sharing for maternity care for women with employer-based health insurance plans, before and after the Affordable Care Act," which was signed into law in 2010. The study looked at over 657,061 women enrolled in large employer-sponsored health insurance plans who delivered babies between 2008 and 2015, as these plans tend to cover more than plans purchased by small businesses or individuals.

Keep Reading

A meteorite crashed into Earth nearly 800,000 years ago. The meteor was 1.2 miles wide, and the impact was so big, it covered 10% of the planet with debris. However, scientists haven't been able to find the impact site for over a century. That is, until now. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal believes the crash site has been located.

Tektites, which are essentially rocks that have been liquefied from the heat of the impact and then cooled to form glass, help scientists spot the original impact site of a meteor. Upon impact, melted material is thrown into the atmosphere, then falls back to the ground. Even if the original crater has disappeared due to erosion or is hidden by a shift in tectonic plates, tektites give the spot away. Tektites between 750,000 to 35.5 million years old have been found in every continent except Antarctica.

Keep Reading