ライフサイエンスコーパス: prenatal diagnosis

1 orders can be controlled, by counselling and prenatal diagnosis.

2 reduced ovarian complement should be offered prenatal diagnosis.

3 pregnant women, undergoing amniocentesis for prenatal diagnosis.

4 the outcome of cases with and those without prenatal diagnosis.

5 nvasive source of fetal genetic material for prenatal diagnosis.

6 Our finding will aid genetic counselling and prenatal diagnosis.

7 ed, and all postconception couples opted for prenatal diagnosis.

8 d because of a chromosomal abnormality after prenatal diagnosis.

9 rier whose partner tested negative requested prenatal diagnosis.

10 tirely through screening, 20 (91%) opted for prenatal diagnosis.

11 in these cases with obvious implications for prenatal diagnosis.

12 nherited condition screening and noninvasive prenatal diagnosis.

13 tervention and, perhaps, carrier testing and prenatal diagnosis.

14 many of the economic and ethical dilemmas in prenatal diagnosis.

15 sis as compared with karyotyping for routine prenatal diagnosis.

16 culation holds great promise for noninvasive prenatal diagnosis.

17 iac defects is not significantly improved by prenatal diagnosis.

18 d ALDH7A1 gene analysis provides a means for prenatal diagnosis.

19 This finding paves the way for early prenatal diagnosis.

20 s based on age or risk for offering invasive prenatal diagnosis.

21 sis and for reliable genetic counselling and prenatal diagnosis.

22 ical CHD (41 of 86 [48%]) than in those with prenatal diagnosis (16 of 67 [24%]) (P = .003).

23 In general, this prenatal diagnosis allows more informed prenatal counsel

24 Prenatal diagnosis alone was not associated with improve

25 the AJ population, potentially facilitating prenatal diagnosis and carrier detection of MSUD in this

26 n take advantage of the genetic analysis for prenatal diagnosis and carrier detection of the heredita

27 ed with control HLHS patients, regardless of prenatal diagnosis and despite successful catheter-based

28 ome in 1989-1991 that could be attributed to prenatal diagnosis and elective abortion of affected fet

29 and the effect of these factors on rates of prenatal diagnosis and elective pregnancy termination.

30 These findings indicate that prenatal diagnosis and elective termination of affected

31 The authors examined the impact of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination of neural tu

32 This study examined the effect of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on the preva

33 , these findings should assist physicians in prenatal diagnosis and genetic counseling of parents who

34 everal fields of medicine, including cancer, prenatal diagnosis and infectious diseases.

35 everal fields of medicine, including cancer, prenatal diagnosis and infectious diseases.

36 s, psychological effects, and utilization of prenatal diagnosis and its outcomes.

37 ssessment is reviewed to show the benefit of prenatal diagnosis and management as they affect outcome

38 tiology, anatomy and embryology, the role of prenatal diagnosis and mode of delivery, and initial man

39 Of the five at-risk couples, four requested prenatal diagnosis and one requested neonatal diagnosis.

40 ilure to account for the differential use of prenatal diagnosis and pregnancy termination between low

41 vances have important implications for early prenatal diagnosis and prenatal treatment.

42 These approaches allow definitive prenatal diagnosis and represent a significant improveme

43 Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion have been effe

44 gnosed fetuses; 2) to estimate the impact of prenatal diagnosis and subsequent elective abortion of a

45 All patients who had a prenatal diagnosis and underwent surgery survived, where

46 Prenatal diagnosis and/or embryo selection after genetic

47 l practice, facilitating genetic counseling, prenatal diagnosis, and evaluation of living-related liv

48 lasma may have implications for non-invasive prenatal diagnosis, and for improving our understanding

49 evention strategies through gamete donation, prenatal diagnosis, and genetic counseling.

50 d have ushered in an era of carrier testing, prenatal diagnosis, and prevention strategies.

51 d lead to improved molecular classification, prenatal diagnosis, and therapy of this important heredi

52 Neonatal screening for CAH and gene-specific prenatal diagnosis are now possible.

53 The benefits and harm associated with prenatal diagnosis are open to debate.

54 interpretation by individuals familiar with prenatal diagnosis, are important factors for optimal pa

55 anzmann thrombasthenia carrier detection and prenatal diagnosis, assays to identify single nucleotide

56 Samples from women undergoing prenatal diagnosis at 29 centers were sent to a central

57 n with both the index trisomy and subsequent prenatal diagnosis at age <30 years, the SMR was 8.0; it

58 well as reagents for conducting genome-wide prenatal diagnosis at the molecular level and for detect

59 n of new cases through carrier detection and prenatal diagnosis becomes extremely important.

60 As prenatal diagnosis becomes increasingly complex, there i

61 nsfer to uterus, pregnancy confirmation, and prenatal diagnosis by amniocentesis at 16.5 weeks' gesta

62 n single gene disorders using this method of prenatal diagnosis by enriching fetal cells from materna

63 Noninvasive prenatal diagnosis by isolation and genetic analysis of

64 h the information service was made after the prenatal diagnosis by ultrasound.

65 Prenatal diagnosis can and should be used to optimize lo

66 The cells for prenatal diagnosis can be converted into iPS cells for t

67 Accurate prenatal diagnosis can now accurately identify fetal pat

68 Advances in prenatal diagnosis, combined with a better understanding

69 The associations between prenatal diagnosis, CSC HLHS volume, and mortality were

70 Patients with prenatal diagnosis demonstrated faster brain development

71 tility of these circulating nucleic acids in prenatal diagnosis, early cancer detection, and the diag

72 Parallel advances in prenatal diagnosis, fetal intervention, and hematopoieti

73 Prenatal diagnosis for chromosome abnormality is routine

74 matologic disease is a viable alternative to prenatal diagnosis for couples who wish to avoid having

75 have implications for genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis for EBS.

76 e need not include karyotyping and can offer prenatal diagnosis for the syndrome with FISH (fluoresce

77 he yield in autism spectrum disorders and in prenatal diagnosis, for which published guidelines recom

78 Those with prenatal diagnosis had an earlier estimated gestational

79 Patients with prenatal diagnosis had lower birth weight (mean, 3184.5

80 Historically, the goal of prenatal diagnosis has been to provide an informed choic

81 and implementation of carrier detection and prenatal diagnosis has dramatically decreased the incide

82 d no difference for weight, gestational age, prenatal diagnosis, HLHS variant, associated diagnoses,

83 ch other (91%), and that women should have a prenatal diagnosis if medically indicated (91%).

84 Consequently, noninvasive prenatal diagnosis in a mother and father carrying ident

85 of MLIV to chromosome 19 will permit genetic prenatal diagnosis in affected families and will aid in

86 d treatment of this disorder in infants, and prenatal diagnosis in families that carry a mutated gene

87 tment in newborns and genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies in affected

88 r neonatal demise, which helped in providing prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies.

89 Prenatal diagnosis in the second case showed the fetus t

90 we document successful use of DNA repair for prenatal diagnosis in triplet and singleton pregnancies

91 luding two sets of conjoined twins, accurate prenatal diagnosis including definition of the great art

92 g diagnostic or therapeutic clues in cancer, prenatal diagnosis, infectious diseases or organ transpl

93 e dominated recent technological advances in prenatal diagnosis: interrogation of the fetal genome in

94 The issue of missed prenatal diagnosis is disturbing, especially when it ari

95 during the first trimester of pregnancy when prenatal diagnosis is most relevant.

96 rnal blood, which suggests that non-invasive prenatal diagnosis is possible.

97 One clear advantage of prenatal diagnosis is the selection of fetuses that may

98 affected pregnancy identified by traditional prenatal diagnosis is unacceptable and is applicable to

99 Finally, several recent studies suggest that prenatal diagnosis may improve neonatal outcome for fetu

100 gement of anorectal malformations, including prenatal diagnosis, newborn treatment, surgical correcti

101 al plasma is used routinely for non invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) of fetal sex determination, fe

102 ruction is a primary drawback to noninvasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) of monogenic disease.

103 Increases in prenatal diagnosis, observed regression of certain lesio

104 aphy for early reassurance of normality or a prenatal diagnosis of a cardiac malformation.

105 sibility of providing a new option following prenatal diagnosis of a fetus affected by a severe illne

106 Prenatal diagnosis of aortic coarctation suffers from hi

107 uccessfully used direct gene analysis in the prenatal diagnosis of Batten's disease.

108 Reviewing the advances in prenatal diagnosis of CHD in such a rapidly developing f

109 in maternal serum not only could help us in prenatal diagnosis of CHDs, but also may shed new light

110 the discovery of non-invasive biomarkers for prenatal diagnosis of CHDs.

111 Prenatal diagnosis of chromosomal abnormality requires c

112 Although prenatal diagnosis of CLMs using ultrasound and MRI has

113 Prenatal diagnosis of coarctation of the aorta (CoA) is

114 rdiography is being used increasingly in the prenatal diagnosis of congenital cardiac malformations i

115 ography is being used more frequently in the prenatal diagnosis of congenital cardiac malformations,

116 with even greater demand for improvement in prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD) and

117 widely established in the United Kingdom for prenatal diagnosis of congenital heart disease.

118 The relationship of prenatal diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease

119 ave not demonstrated improved survival after prenatal diagnosis of critical congenital heart disease,

120 egislation that requires women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome to receive positive

121 nostic test has great potential for improved prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome, with the advantag

122 plification of chromosome 21 markers for the prenatal diagnosis of Down's syndrome.

123 Prenatal diagnosis of eight pregnancies with keratin gen

124 Mutation screening and prenatal diagnosis of families at risk may be expedited

125 he diagnostic accuracy and confidence of the prenatal diagnosis of fetal brain abnormalities is impro

126 MR imaging is a valuable adjunct to US for prenatal diagnosis of fetal chest masses.

127 tant implications for genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis of HI, and also provide a basis to fu

128 Efforts to improve prenatal diagnosis of HLHS and subsequent delivery near

129 Prenatal diagnosis of HLHS was associated with improved

130 ntation for leukocyte adhesion deficiency-I; prenatal diagnosis of leukocyte adhesion deficiency-I; a

131 Thus, prenatal diagnosis of single gene disorders by recoverin

132 Newborns with prenatal diagnosis of single ventricle physiology and tr

133 mong pregnancies that are terminated after a prenatal diagnosis of the defect.

134 rt on the use of direct gene analysis in the prenatal diagnosis of this disease.

135 g the current status of counseling regarding prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 18 (T18) or trisomy 13 (T1

136 Prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 currently relies on ass

137 Prenatal diagnosis of trisomy 21 requires an invasive te

138 comes with prenatal diagnosis, the effect of prenatal diagnosis on brain health may reveal additional

139 and March 1999 to determine the influence of prenatal diagnosis on preoperative clinical status, outc

140 , remains very bleak.Assessing the effect of prenatal diagnosis on the outcome of structural defects

141 l center (CSC), the recommended action after prenatal diagnosis, on HLHS mortality has been poorly in

142 ntation of basic health interventions (e.g., prenatal diagnosis, penicillin prophylaxis, and vaccinat

143 ssess attitudes toward genetics, interest in prenatal diagnosis (PND) for deafness, and preference fo

144 is applicable to indications beyond those of prenatal diagnosis, such as HLA matching to affected sib

145 Prenatal diagnosis technology development is necessary t

146 hnology have been applied more frequently to prenatal diagnosis than to fetal treatment, genetic and

147 ven limited improvement of CHD outcomes with prenatal diagnosis, the effect of prenatal diagnosis on

148 ncy in this family allowed mutation-specific prenatal diagnosis to be performed in a subsequent pregn

149 past 12 months, ranging from classification, prenatal diagnosis, treatment options, and predictors of

150 e a 6-year overview of the experience of one prenatal-diagnosis unit using a defined, unselected popu

151 igital) analytical methods in the context of prenatal diagnosis using cell free DNA for monogenic dis

152 arrier and noncarrier goats and was used for prenatal diagnosis using DNA collected from fetal fluids

153 Prenatal diagnosis was changed in some patients owing to

154 Prenatal diagnosis was offered if both parents were iden

155 First-trimester prenatal diagnosis was undertaken by chorionic villus DN

156 ermination of affected pregnancies following prenatal diagnosis, was 1.53 per 1,000 live births.

157 chorionic villus sampling that are used for prenatal diagnosis, we also showed that these cells coul

158 Indications for prenatal diagnosis were advanced maternal age (46.6%), a

159 iews and opinions of antenatal screening and prenatal diagnosis were included.

160 trasound and fetal MRI can be used to make a prenatal diagnosis, while MRI is the imaging modality of

161 advantage to A-T families since a DNA based prenatal diagnosis will be possible in families where th

162 sis or standard karyotype can be offered for prenatal diagnosis with a phenotypically normal fetus.

163 , survival of infants was not improved after prenatal diagnosis with fetal echocardiography.

164 compared the observed number of trisomies at prenatal diagnosis with the expected numbers, given mate

165 ns such as pre-implantation and non-invasive prenatal diagnosis would benefit from the ability to cha