ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Utah NeoSeq Project: a collaborative multidisciplinary program to facilitate genomic diagnostics in the neonatal intensive care unit.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Breaking barriers: fostering equitable access to pediatric genomics through innovative care models and technologies.Pediatric research · 2025Review
- Phenotype-aware prioritisation of rare Mendelian disease variants.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The primary goal of precision genomics is the identification of causative genetic variants in targeted or whole-genome sequencing data. The ultimate clinical hope is that these findings lead to an efficacious change in treatment for the patient. In current clinical practice, these findings are typically returned by expert analysts as static, text-based reports. Ideally, these reports summarize the quality of the data obtained, integrate known gene-phenotype associations, follow allele segregation and affected status within the sequenced samples, and weigh computational evidence of pathogenicity. These findings are used to prioritize the variant(s) most likely to cause the given patient's phenotypes. In most diagnostic settings, a team of experts contribute to these reports, including bioinformaticians, clinicians, and genetic counselors, among others. However, these experts often do not have the necessary tools to review genomic findings, test genetic hypotheses, or query specific gene and variant information. Additionally, team members often rely on different tools and methods based on their given expertise, resulting in further difficulties in communicating and discussing genomic findings. Here, we present
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.