Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Weight correction of MoM values: which method?

T M Reynolds1, G Vranken, J Van Nueten

  • 1Queens Hospital, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire, UK. tim.reynolds@burtonh-tr.wmids.nhs.uk

Journal of Clinical Pathology
|April 11, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The production of Cyprideis torosa Jones 1850 (Crustacea, Ostracoda).

Oecologia·2017
Same author

Studies of the life-history and energetics of marine and brackish-water nematodes : I. Demography of Monhystera disjuncta at different temperature and feeding conditions.

Oecologia·2017
Same author

Serum uric acid and new-onset hypertension: a possible therapeutic avenue?

Journal of human hypertension·2014
Same author

Targeted lipid treatment: decades of failure suggest new targets are in order.

International journal of clinical practice·2013
Same author

Prescribing high-dose lipid-lowering therapy early to avoid subsequent cardiovascular events: is this a cost-effective strategy?

European journal of preventive cardiology·2011
Same author

Implementing the national invasive cervical cancer audit: a local perspective.

BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology·2010
Same journal

HER2-low as a unique subgroup in breast cancer: insights from neoadjuvant chemotherapy response and survival analysis.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Polyp-forming Dieulafoy lesion of the rectum.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Defining biochemical, pathological and molecular factors prognostic in terms of disease control and survival in high-grade extremity soft tissue sarcoma: a scoping review.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

MILGDF: a multi-task, instance-level supervised model for oral squamous cell carcinoma integrating local-global attention and dynamic decision fusion.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

Paediatric B-lymphoblastic leukaemia with low peripheral blasts: a potential diagnostic pitfall.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
Same journal

MRI-targeted versus systematic needle core biopsies in prostate cancer: a patient-based analysis of potential diagnostic and biologic underestimation.

Journal of clinical pathology·2026
See all related articles

Maternal weight adjustment for Down

Area of Science:

  • Biochemistry
  • Genetics
  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Background:

  • Maternal serum marker adjustment for weight is standard in Down's syndrome screening.
  • The specific model used for weight adjustment is rarely evaluated.
  • This study investigates different weight adjustment models for serum markers.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare two models (log-linear and linear-reciprocal) for maternal weight adjustment.
  • To assess the impact of different weight adjustment models on Down's syndrome risk assessment.

Main Methods:

  • Investigated serum markers alphafetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), and unconjugated oestriol (uE3) in 752 pregnant women.
  • Applied log-linear and linear-reciprocal models to correlate marker levels with maternal weight.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Compared weight-corrected multiples of the median (MoM) values and estimated risk differences.

    • Main Results:

    • A significant relationship was found between log(10) MoM values and maternal weight for all markers.
    • The log-linear model showed higher coefficients of determination (r²) than the linear-reciprocal model.
    • Weight correction factors for median weight were not significantly different from 1; however, differences in corrected MoM values between methods were significant (e.g., 14.0% for HCG).

    Conclusions:

    • The log-linear weight correction approach demonstrated slightly better efficacy.
    • While weight-corrected MoM values differed significantly between models, the impact on Down's syndrome risk calculation was not significant.
    • Risk changes became significant when correction factors deviated substantially from 1.