ArticleClinical genetics2019
Inter-lab concordance of variant classifications establishes clinical validity of expanded carrier screening.
Article in Clinical genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing National Programmes for Expanded Carrier Screening: Results from a Discrete-Choice Experiment in Singapore.The patient · 2026Article
- Beyond carrier frequency: a preliminary multicenter study of simultaneous couple-based comprehensive carrier screening for common and rare genetic disorders.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- The ethics of preconception expanded carrier screening in patients seeking assisted reproduction.Human reproduction open · 2021Article
- Clinical validity of expanded carrier screening: Evaluating the gene-disease relationship in more than 200 conditions.Human mutation · 2020Article
- Inter-lab concordance of variant classifications establishes clinical validity of expanded carrier screening.Clinical genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels that use next-generation sequencing aim to identify pathogenic variants in coding and clinically relevant non-coding regions of hundreds of genes, each associated with a serious recessive condition. ECS has established analytical validity and clinical utility, meaning that variants are accurately identified and pathogenic variants tend to alter patients' clinical management, respectively. However, the clinical validity of ECS, that is, correct discernment of whether an identified variant is indeed pathogenic, has only been shown for single conditions, not for panels. Here, we evaluate the clinical validity of a >170-condition ECS panel by assessing concordance between >12 000 variant interpretations classified with guideline-based criteria to their corresponding per-variant combined classifications in ClinVar. We observe 99% concordance at the level of unique variants. A more clinically relevant frequency-weighted analysis reveals that fewer than 1 in 500 patients are expected to receive a report with a variant that has a discordant classification. Importantly, gene-level concordance is not diminished for rare ECS conditions, suggesting that large panels do not balloon the panel-wide false-positive rate. Finally, because ECS is intended to serve all reproductive-age couples, we show that classification of novel variants is feasible and scales predictably for a large population.
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.