ArticleHGG advances2022
Genome-wide sequencing and the clinical diagnosis of genetic disease: The CAUSES study.
Article in HGG advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exome sequencing early in outpatient evaluation in NCGENES 2: Changing the course of the diagnostic odyssey?HGG advances · 2026Article
- Paternal age effect in autosomal dominant or X-linked de novo variants identified by genome-wide sequencing.HGG advances · 2026Article
- Implementing a consultation service for translating genomic research findings into the clinic: Lessons from the SickKids Genome Board.Paediatrics & child health · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical and functional characterization of the GABRB3 p.Met80Val variant in early-onset epilepsy with long-term follow-up.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Whole Exome Sequencing in 26 Saudi Patients Expands the Mutational and Clinical Spectrum of Diabetic Nephropathy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Detection of Complex Genomic Rearrangements Using Short-Read Whole Genome Sequencing in C. elegans.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Health Care Costs After Genome-Wide Sequencing for Children With Rare Diseases in England and Canada.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Genome and RNA sequencing boost neuromuscular diagnoses to 62% from 34% with exome sequencing alone.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2024Article
- Consensus reporting guidelines to address gaps in descriptions of ultra-rare genetic conditions.NPJ genomic medicine · 2024Article
- Single variant, yet "double trouble": TSC and KBG syndrome because of a large de novo inversion.Life science alliance · 2024Article
- Case report: Unveiling genetic and phenotypic variability in Nonketotic hyperglycinemia: an atypical early onset case associated with a novelFrontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- First reports of primary ciliary dyskinesia caused by a shared DNAH11 allele in Canadian Inuit.Pediatric pulmonology · 2023Article
- Whole exome sequencing identified five novel variants inFrontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Infant With a Severe Form ofPediatric and developmental pathology : the official journal of the Society for Pediatric Pathology and the Paediatric Pathology SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
51 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome-wide sequencing (GWS) is a standard of care for diagnosis of suspected genetic disorders, but the proportion of patients found to have pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants ranges from less than 30% to more than 60% in reported studies. It has been suggested that the diagnostic rate can be improved by interpreting genomic variants in the context of each affected individual's full clinical picture and by regular follow-up and reinterpretation of GWS laboratory results. Trio exome sequencing was performed in 415 families and trio genome sequencing in 85 families in the CAUSES study. The variants observed were interpreted by a multidisciplinary team including laboratory geneticists, bioinformaticians, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, pediatric subspecialists, and the referring physician, and independently by a clinical laboratory using standard American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) criteria. Individuals were followed for an average of 5.1 years after testing, with clinical reassessment and reinterpretation of the GWS results as necessary. The multidisciplinary team established a diagnosis of genetic disease in 43.0% of the families at the time of initial GWS interpretation, and longitudinal follow-up and reinterpretation of GWS results produced new diagnoses in 17.2% of families whose initial GWS interpretation was uninformative or uncertain. Reinterpretation also resulted in rescinding a diagnosis in four families (1.9%). Of the families studied, 33.6% had ACMG pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants related to the clinical indication. Close collaboration among clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, laboratory geneticists, bioinformaticians, and individuals' primary physicians, with ongoing follow-up, reanalysis, and reinterpretation over time, can improve the clinical value of GWS.
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.