Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 10, 2026

Analysis of Congenital Heart Defects in Mouse Embryos Using Qualitative and Quantitative Histological Methods
Published on: March 10, 2020
The aetiology distribution of birth defects based on the China Birth Cohort Study
Xiaohang Liu1, Ruixia Liu2, Chen Wang3
1Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-based Medicine, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, National Center for Children Health, Beijing, China.
Insights
Nearly 80% of birth defects lack identifiable causes, highlighting the need to establish causal links between risk factors and congenital abnormalities. Further research is crucial for prevention strategies.
Area of Science:
- Medical Genetics
- Developmental Biology
- Public Health
Background:
- Birth defects represent a significant global health burden, necessitating identification of their causes.
- Current understanding of birth defect etiology is limited, with few established causal relationships.
- The China Birth Cohort Study (CBCS) provides a valuable dataset for investigating birth defect causes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze birth defect cases from the CBCS to determine the etiological profile.
- To identify the proportion of birth defects with known causes and their categories.
- To understand the distribution of causes across different pregnancy outcomes.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 2123 birth defect cases from the CBCS (November 2017 - August 2021).
- Categorization of causes into chromosomal anomalies, genetic anomalies, environmental exposures, and twinning.
- Genetic screening and review of exposure data for etiological determination.
Main Results:
- Only 22.4% of reviewed birth defect cases had identifiable causes.
- Congenital heart disease, polydactyly, trisomy 21, and cleft lip/palate were most common.
- Identifiable causes included chromosomal anomalies (415), monogenic disorders (31), environmental exposures (23), and twinning (6).
Conclusions:
- A significant majority (nearly 80%) of birth defects in the CBCS cohort lack identifiable causes.
- Translating statistical associations into causal relationships for risk factors is essential.
- Further research is needed to elucidate the etiology of the majority of birth defects.
Background:
Birth defects, which comprise a series of severe congenital abnormalities, impose a significant burden on society, families and individuals. Consequently, it is crucial to identify the underlying causes of birth defects and reduce their occurrence. Although an increasing number of risk factors for birth defects have been identified, few associations can be established as causal. Furthermore, the distribution of aetiology related to birth defects remains unclear. This study aims to analyse birth defect cases from the China Birth Cohort Study (CBCS) to elucidate the aetiological profile of these conditions.
Methods:
A total of 3873 abnormal cases were recorded in the CBCS from November 2017 to August 2021. Abnormal fetuses (including both live births and foetal losses) were diagnosed by obstetricians, ultrasound specialists and geneticists based on prenatal screening and clinical examinations. The causes of birth defects were categorised into chromosomal anomalies, genetic anomalies, environmental exposures and twinning. Chromosomal and genetic anomalies were identified through genetic screening. Data on exposure, including the substances involved and the duration of exposure, were reviewed to determine whether environmental factors contributed to the birth defects.
Results:
After excluding cases with minor malformations, a total of 2123 birth defect cases were reviewed. The most common birth defects among the included cases were congenital heart disease, polydactyly, trisomy 21 and cleft palate with cleft lip. Of these, only 22.4% (475/2123) had identifiable causes. Specifically, 415 cases were attributed to chromosomal anomalies, while 31 cases were diagnosed as monogenic disorders. Additionally, 23 cases were linked to environmental exposures, and 6 cases were associated with twinning. The proportions of birth defect cases with known causes were significantly higher in the spontaneous abortion group (12/27, 44.4%), the therapeutic abortion group (314/1044, 30.1%) and perinatal death group (13/36, 36.1%) compared with live births (136/1016, 13.4%).
Conclusions:
Nearly 80% of birth defect cases in the CBCS lack a clear identifiable cause. Therefore, translating statistical associations between risk factors and birth defects into causal relationships is both necessary and important.
Related Concept Videos
Probability Laws
Pedigree Analysis
Nondisjunction
Teratogenicity
Sex-linked Disorders
Bias in Epidemiological Studies

