The Experts below are selected from a list of 58137 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
P. Schmidt - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of prenatal Risk Calculation prc with pia fetal database software in first trimester screening for fetal aneuploidy
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2009Co-Authors: C. Hörmansdörfer, Michael Golatta, B. Vaske, Peter Hillemanns, A. Corral, A Scharf, P. SchmidtAbstract:Objectives In February 2007 new software, Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC), for calculating the Risk of fetal aneuploidy was introduced in Germany. Our aim was to investigate its test performance and compare it with that of the PIA Fetal Database (PIA) software developed and used by The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Methods Between 31 August 1999 and 30 June 2004 at the Women’s Hospital of the Medical University of Hanover in Germany, 3120 singleton pregnancies underwent combined first-trimester screening at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. Calculation of Risk for fetal aneuploidy was computed prospectively using the PIA software. In a subsequent retrospective analysis, we recalculated Risks for the 2653 of these datasets with known fetal outcome using the PRC software and compared the results. Results Of the 2653 datasets analyzed, 17 were cases of aneuploidy. At a cut-off of 1 : 230, for the detection of fetal aneuploidy, the respective sensitivity, false-positive rate and positive predictive value were 70.6%, 4.1% and 9.9% for PRC and 76.5%, 2.9% and 14.6% for PIA. At a cut-off of 1 : 300, the equivalent values were 70.6%, 5.6% and 7.5% for PRC and 76.5%, 4.0% and 11.0% for PIA. The differences in test performance between the two types of software were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Discussion The test performance of PRC was inferior to that of PIA, the sensitivity for detection of fetal aneuploidy being lower and the false-positive rate higher. Had PRC been employed prospectively in our study, 40% more women examined would have been offered unnecessarily an invasive procedure for fetal karyotyping. Copyright 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Comparison of Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC) with PIA Fetal Database software in first‐trimester screening for fetal aneuploidy
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2009Co-Authors: C. Hörmansdörfer, Alexander Scharf, Michael Golatta, B. Vaske, Peter Hillemanns, A. Corral, P. SchmidtAbstract:Objectives In February 2007 new software, Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC), for calculating the Risk of fetal aneuploidy was introduced in Germany. Our aim was to investigate its test performance and compare it with that of the PIA Fetal Database (PIA) software developed and used by The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Methods Between 31 August 1999 and 30 June 2004 at the Women’s Hospital of the Medical University of Hanover in Germany, 3120 singleton pregnancies underwent combined first-trimester screening at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. Calculation of Risk for fetal aneuploidy was computed prospectively using the PIA software. In a subsequent retrospective analysis, we recalculated Risks for the 2653 of these datasets with known fetal outcome using the PRC software and compared the results. Results Of the 2653 datasets analyzed, 17 were cases of aneuploidy. At a cut-off of 1 : 230, for the detection of fetal aneuploidy, the respective sensitivity, false-positive rate and positive predictive value were 70.6%, 4.1% and 9.9% for PRC and 76.5%, 2.9% and 14.6% for PIA. At a cut-off of 1 : 300, the equivalent values were 70.6%, 5.6% and 7.5% for PRC and 76.5%, 4.0% and 11.0% for PIA. The differences in test performance between the two types of software were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Discussion The test performance of PRC was inferior to that of PIA, the sensitivity for detection of fetal aneuploidy being lower and the false-positive rate higher. Had PRC been employed prospectively in our study, 40% more women examined would have been offered unnecessarily an invasive procedure for fetal karyotyping. Copyright 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Preliminary analysis of the new ‘Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC)’ software
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2008Co-Authors: C. Hörmansdörfer, Alexander Scharf, Michael Golatta, B. Vaske, Peter Hillemanns, P. SchmidtAbstract:Objectives In February 2007, the “Fetal Medicine Foundation Germany (FMF-D)” introduced its new Calculation software for First Trimester Screening (FTS), called “Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC)”. The aim of this study was to retrospectively investigate the test performance of PRC in comparison to the “NT module of the JOY software (JOY)”.
Ron Maymon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
down syndrome Risk Calculation for a twin fetus taking account of the nuchal translucency in the co twin
Prenatal Diagnosis, 2010Co-Authors: Howard Cuckle, Ron MaymonAbstract:Objective The objective of this study was to describe and illustrate a method for calculating fetus-specific Down syndrome Risk in twins, allowing for between-fetus nuchal translucency (NT) correlation. Methods The between-fetus correlation coefficient of log NT, in multiples of the median, was estimated from a series of 325 unaffected twins after adjustment for sonographer bias. A bivariate log Gaussian model was used to calculate likelihood ratios for discordant and concordant Down syndrome. Applying these to the prior maternal age-specific Risk yielded Risks in monozygous and dizygous twins. The weighted average Risk was then computed with weights relating to chorionicity, gender, assisted reproduction and ethnicity. The method was illustrated using examples. Results The correlation coefficient in unaffected pregnancies was 0.45 (P < 0.0001) and estimated to be 0.12 and 0.04 in discordant and concordant twins, respectively. The examples showed very large differences in the Risks obtained when the extent of correlation in NT between fetuses is taken into account and when the measurements are treated as independent. Conclusion Fetus-specific Down syndrome Risks in twins should be calculated using its own NT value as well as that of the co-twin. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Chen Chuang-xi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Risk Calculation for Information System Based on Fuzzy Theory
Computer Engineering, 2007Co-Authors: Chen Chuang-xiAbstract:This paper presents a fuzzy theory based Risk Calculation approach for information system security assessment.The approach assigns weights to Risk factors through AHP and the fuzzy synthetic assessment model based on the Risk Calculation function factor analysis.It describes the method,the process and a typical instance of the Risk Calculation.
C. Hörmansdörfer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparison of prenatal Risk Calculation prc with pia fetal database software in first trimester screening for fetal aneuploidy
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2009Co-Authors: C. Hörmansdörfer, Michael Golatta, B. Vaske, Peter Hillemanns, A. Corral, A Scharf, P. SchmidtAbstract:Objectives In February 2007 new software, Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC), for calculating the Risk of fetal aneuploidy was introduced in Germany. Our aim was to investigate its test performance and compare it with that of the PIA Fetal Database (PIA) software developed and used by The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Methods Between 31 August 1999 and 30 June 2004 at the Women’s Hospital of the Medical University of Hanover in Germany, 3120 singleton pregnancies underwent combined first-trimester screening at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. Calculation of Risk for fetal aneuploidy was computed prospectively using the PIA software. In a subsequent retrospective analysis, we recalculated Risks for the 2653 of these datasets with known fetal outcome using the PRC software and compared the results. Results Of the 2653 datasets analyzed, 17 were cases of aneuploidy. At a cut-off of 1 : 230, for the detection of fetal aneuploidy, the respective sensitivity, false-positive rate and positive predictive value were 70.6%, 4.1% and 9.9% for PRC and 76.5%, 2.9% and 14.6% for PIA. At a cut-off of 1 : 300, the equivalent values were 70.6%, 5.6% and 7.5% for PRC and 76.5%, 4.0% and 11.0% for PIA. The differences in test performance between the two types of software were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Discussion The test performance of PRC was inferior to that of PIA, the sensitivity for detection of fetal aneuploidy being lower and the false-positive rate higher. Had PRC been employed prospectively in our study, 40% more women examined would have been offered unnecessarily an invasive procedure for fetal karyotyping. Copyright 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Comparison of Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC) with PIA Fetal Database software in first‐trimester screening for fetal aneuploidy
Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2009Co-Authors: C. Hörmansdörfer, Alexander Scharf, Michael Golatta, B. Vaske, Peter Hillemanns, A. Corral, P. SchmidtAbstract:Objectives In February 2007 new software, Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC), for calculating the Risk of fetal aneuploidy was introduced in Germany. Our aim was to investigate its test performance and compare it with that of the PIA Fetal Database (PIA) software developed and used by The Fetal Medicine Foundation. Methods Between 31 August 1999 and 30 June 2004 at the Women’s Hospital of the Medical University of Hanover in Germany, 3120 singleton pregnancies underwent combined first-trimester screening at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation. Calculation of Risk for fetal aneuploidy was computed prospectively using the PIA software. In a subsequent retrospective analysis, we recalculated Risks for the 2653 of these datasets with known fetal outcome using the PRC software and compared the results. Results Of the 2653 datasets analyzed, 17 were cases of aneuploidy. At a cut-off of 1 : 230, for the detection of fetal aneuploidy, the respective sensitivity, false-positive rate and positive predictive value were 70.6%, 4.1% and 9.9% for PRC and 76.5%, 2.9% and 14.6% for PIA. At a cut-off of 1 : 300, the equivalent values were 70.6%, 5.6% and 7.5% for PRC and 76.5%, 4.0% and 11.0% for PIA. The differences in test performance between the two types of software were highly significant (P < 0.0001). Discussion The test performance of PRC was inferior to that of PIA, the sensitivity for detection of fetal aneuploidy being lower and the false-positive rate higher. Had PRC been employed prospectively in our study, 40% more women examined would have been offered unnecessarily an invasive procedure for fetal karyotyping. Copyright 2008 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Preliminary analysis of the new ‘Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC)’ software
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2008Co-Authors: C. Hörmansdörfer, Alexander Scharf, Michael Golatta, B. Vaske, Peter Hillemanns, P. SchmidtAbstract:Objectives In February 2007, the “Fetal Medicine Foundation Germany (FMF-D)” introduced its new Calculation software for First Trimester Screening (FTS), called “Prenatal Risk Calculation (PRC)”. The aim of this study was to retrospectively investigate the test performance of PRC in comparison to the “NT module of the JOY software (JOY)”.
Howard Cuckle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
down syndrome Risk Calculation for a twin fetus taking account of the nuchal translucency in the co twin
Prenatal Diagnosis, 2010Co-Authors: Howard Cuckle, Ron MaymonAbstract:Objective The objective of this study was to describe and illustrate a method for calculating fetus-specific Down syndrome Risk in twins, allowing for between-fetus nuchal translucency (NT) correlation. Methods The between-fetus correlation coefficient of log NT, in multiples of the median, was estimated from a series of 325 unaffected twins after adjustment for sonographer bias. A bivariate log Gaussian model was used to calculate likelihood ratios for discordant and concordant Down syndrome. Applying these to the prior maternal age-specific Risk yielded Risks in monozygous and dizygous twins. The weighted average Risk was then computed with weights relating to chorionicity, gender, assisted reproduction and ethnicity. The method was illustrated using examples. Results The correlation coefficient in unaffected pregnancies was 0.45 (P < 0.0001) and estimated to be 0.12 and 0.04 in discordant and concordant twins, respectively. The examples showed very large differences in the Risks obtained when the extent of correlation in NT between fetuses is taken into account and when the measurements are treated as independent. Conclusion Fetus-specific Down syndrome Risks in twins should be calculated using its own NT value as well as that of the co-twin. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
