ArticlePloS one2015
Identification of Medically Actionable Secondary Findings in the 1000 Genomes.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary findings in hereditary cancer genes after germline genetic testing - systematic review of literature.Human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- ORCA, a values-based decision aid for selecting additional findings from genomic sequencing in adults: Efficacy results from a randomized trial.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of reported pathogenic variants and their frequencies in a Japanese population based on a whole-genome reference panel of 2049 individuals.Journal of human genetics · 2018Trial
- The Impact of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Primary Care and Outcomes of Healthy Adult Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2017Trial
- aiDIVA - hybrid AI for rare disease diagnostics using evidence-based, machine learning and language models.NPJ genomic medicine · 2026Article
- Reporting practices for secondary findings among ERN GENTURIS member institutions in 15 European countries.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Article
- Findings from comprehensive genome sequencing in the Canadian population: Results from the GENCOV Study.Genetics in medicine open · 2026Article
- From Biobank to Bedside: A Pilot Study on Returning Medically Actionable BRCA1/2 Results in Qatar's Precision Medicine Landscape.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- A feasibility study of whole genome germline testing as an adjunct screening tool in a UK general private practice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Medically Actionable Secondary Findings from Whole-Exome Sequencing (WES) Data in a Sample of 3972 Individuals.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Developing a genetic return of results service core.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Frequency of actionable secondary findings in 7472 Korean genomes derived from the National Project of Bio Big Data pilot study.Human genetics · 2023Article
- Clinically actionable secondary findings in 130 triads from sub-Saharan African families with non-syndromic orofacial clefts.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical trio genome sequencing facilitates the interpretation of variants in cancer predisposition genes in paediatric tumour patients.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- GBA/GBN-position on the feedback of incidental findings in biobank-based research: consensus-based workflow for hospital-based biobanks.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Secondary findings in a large Pakistani cohort tested with whole genome sequencing.Life science alliance · 2023Article
- Clinlabomics: leveraging clinical laboratory data by data mining strategies.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Review
- Analysis of incidental findings in Qatar genome participants reveals novel functional variants in LMNA and DSP.Human molecular genetics · 2022Article
- Association of Pathogenic Variants in Hereditary Cancer Genes With Multiple Diseases.JAMA oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommends that clinical sequencing laboratories return secondary findings in 56 genes associated with medically actionable conditions. Our goal was to apply a systematic, stringent approach consistent with clinical standards to estimate the prevalence of pathogenic variants associated with such conditions using a diverse sequencing reference sample. Candidate variants in the 56 ACMG genes were selected from Phase 1 of the 1000 Genomes dataset, which contains sequencing information on 1,092 unrelated individuals from across the world. These variants were filtered using the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) Professional version and defined parameters, appraised through literature review, and examined by a clinical laboratory specialist and expert physician. Over 70,000 genetic variants were extracted from the 56 genes, and filtering identified 237 variants annotated as disease causing by HGMD Professional. Literature review and expert evaluation determined that 7 of these variants were pathogenic or likely pathogenic. Furthermore, 5 additional truncating variants not listed as disease causing in HGMD Professional were identified as likely pathogenic. These 12 secondary findings are associated with diseases that could inform medical follow-up, including cancer predisposition syndromes, cardiac conditions, and familial hypercholesterolemia. The majority of the identified medically actionable findings were in individuals from the European (5/379) and Americas (4/181) ancestry groups, with fewer findings in Asian (2/286) and African (1/246) ancestry groups. Our results suggest that medically relevant secondary findings can be identified in approximately 1% (12/1092) of individuals in a diverse reference sample. As clinical sequencing laboratories continue to implement the ACMG recommendations, our results highlight that at least a small number of potentially important secondary findings can be selected for return. Our results also confirm that understudied populations will not reap proportionate benefits of genomic medicine, highlighting the need for continued research efforts on genetic diseases in these populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.