Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36218382›Full record

ArticleGenetics and molecular biology2022

Clinical genomics and precision medicine.

Sérgio D J Pena, Eduardo Tarazona-Santos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics and molecular biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sérgio D J PenaUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Departamento de Bioquímica e Imunologia, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7361-8627
Eduardo Tarazona-SantosUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Departamento de Genética, Ecologia e Evolução, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3508-3160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision Medicine emerges from the genomic paradigm of health and disease. For precise molecular diagnoses of genetic diseases, we must analyze the Whole Exome (WES) or the Whole Genome (WGS). By not needing exon capture, WGS is more powerful to detect single nucleotide variants and copy number variants. In healthy individuals, we can observe monogenic highly penetrant variants, which may be causally responsible for diseases, and also susceptibility variants, associated with common polygenic diseases. But there is the major problem of penetrance. Thus, there is the question of whether it is worthwhile to perform WGS in all healthy individuals as a step towards Precision Medicine. The genetic architecture of disease is consistent with the fact that they are all polygenic. Moreover, ancestry adds another layer of complexity. We are now capable of obtaining Polygenic Risk Scores for all complex diseases using only data from new generation sequencing. Yet, review of available evidence does not at present favor the idea that WGS analyses are sufficiently developed to allow reliable predictions of the risk components for monogenic and polygenic hereditary diseases in healthy individuals. Probably, it is still better for WGS to remain reserved for the diagnosis of pathogenic variants of Mendelian diseases.

Identifiers

PMID36218382
PMCPMC9555143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.