{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,16]],"date-time":"2026-06-16T09:42:09Z","timestamp":1781602929610,"version":"3.54.5"},"reference-count":12,"publisher":"BMJ","issue":"7","content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J Clin Pathol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2006,7]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>\n                  <jats:bold>Background:<\/jats:bold> Adjusting maternal serum markers for maternal weight is considered to be a standard practice when screening for pregnancies associated with Down\u2019s syndrome. The choice of model for taking maternal weight into account is, however, rarely explicitly evaluated.<\/jats:p>\n               <jats:p>\n                  <jats:bold>Method:<\/jats:bold> The relationship between the maternal serum markers \u03b1fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) and unconjugated oestriol (uE3), determined with the Beckman Coulter access reagents and maternal weight was investigated in a cohort of 752 Belgian women being screened for pregnancy associated with Down\u2019s syndrome. Two different models (the log\u2013linear equation and the linear\u2013reciprocal equation) were used to determine the relationship between the serum markers and maternal weight.<\/jats:p>\n               <jats:p>\n                  <jats:bold>Results:<\/jats:bold> A significant relationship between log<jats:sub>10<\/jats:sub> multiples of median (MoM) values and weight (kg) was obtained for all markers, and the log\u2013linear model had higher coefficients of determination (r<jats:sup>2<\/jats:sup>) when compared with the linear\u2013reciprocal model. Weight correction with either method achieved the optimum effect that the correction factor for a woman with a population median weight of 65.5 kg was not significantly different from 1. Simulated weight-corrected MoM values with the two approaches were compared and variation was estimated. The mean difference between the weight-corrected MoM values calculated by the two methods was 7.8% (SD 4.3%) for AFP, 14.0% (4.4%) for HCG and 5.9% (3.2%) for uE3. This resulted in a difference in risk estimate of 1.66\u20135.34% for Down\u2019s syndrome owing to weight correction algorithm differences in women of median weight.<\/jats:p>\n               <jats:p>\n                  <jats:bold>Conclusion:<\/jats:bold> The log\u2013linear weight correction approach was shown to be marginally more effective by a goodness-of-fit analysis. Differences in weight-corrected MoM values estimated with the two approaches are highly significant (p&lt;0.0001, Wilcoxon\u2019s paired sample test), but the effect on risk calculation was not significant. It was observed that the changes in risk became significant the more the MoM correction factors deviated from 1.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1136\/jcp.2005.034280","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2006,4,7]],"date-time":"2006-04-07T20:34:44Z","timestamp":1144442084000},"page":"753-758","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":16,"title":["Weight correction of MoM values: which method?"],"prefix":"10.1136","volume":"59","author":[{"given":"T M","family":"Reynolds","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"G","family":"Vranken","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"J","family":"Van Nueten","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"239","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2006,4,7]]},"reference":[{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"133","DOI":"10.1093\/clinchem\/27.1.133","volume":"27","year":"1981","journal-title":"Clin Chem"},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wald NJ, Kennard A, Hackshaw A, et al. Antenatal screening for Down\u00e2\u0080\u0099s syndrome. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2: i\u00e2\u0080\u0093iv, 1\u00e2\u0080\u0093112,.","DOI":"10.3310\/hta2010"},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.3","unstructured":"FBR\/CAP. Adjusting serum analyte values for maternal weight as part of a second trimester screening program for open neural tube defects and Down\u00e2\u0080\u0099s syndrome. Based on the FBR\/CAP maternal screening participant summary report\u00e2\u0080\u0099s special topic appearing in survey 2003 FP-A of the same title. http:\/\/www.fbr.org\/edu\/cap\/cap_maternal-weight.pdf (accessed 21 Dec 2005)."},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1471-0528.1992.tb14474.x"},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(95)91374-2"},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"245","DOI":"10.1177\/000456329102800308","volume":"28","year":"1991","journal-title":"Ann Clin Biochem"},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.7","unstructured":"Anon. National Down\u00e2\u0080\u0099s syndrome screening programme for England: Antenatal screening\u00e2\u0080\u0093working standards. March 2004. http:\/\/www.screening.nhs.uk\/downs\/working_standards.pdf (accessed 18 May 2006)."},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.8","first-page":"639","volume":"6","year":"2006","journal-title":"J Clin Pathol"},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.9","unstructured":"Anon. National Down\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Syndrome screening programme for England: National specification for risk calculation software and guidance on implementation. October 2004. http:\/\/der.nelh.nhs.uk\/screening\/dssp\/Software_specification.pdf (accessed 18 May 2006)."},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"452","DOI":"10.1177\/000456329002700506","volume":"27","year":"1990","journal-title":"Ann Clin Biochem"},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/(SICI)1097-0223(199612)16:12<1115::AID-PD3>3.0.CO;2-6"},{"key":"2025092503383040000_59.7.753.12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1057","DOI":"10.1002\/pd.1970151111","volume":"15","year":"1995","journal-title":"Prenatal Diagn"}],"container-title":["Journal of Clinical Pathology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/syndication.highwire.org\/content\/doi\/10.1136\/jcp.2005.034280","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,25]],"date-time":"2025-09-25T10:38:38Z","timestamp":1758796718000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/jcp.bmj.com\/lookup\/doi\/10.1136\/jcp.2005.034280"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2006,4,7]]},"references-count":12,"journal-issue":{"issue":"7","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2006,6,27]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2006,7]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1136\/jcp.2005.034280"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/jcp.2005.034280","relation":{},"ISSN":["0021-9746","1472-4146"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0021-9746","type":"print"},{"value":"1472-4146","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2006,4,7]]}}}