ArticleGenes2022
Routine Diagnostics Confirm Novel Neurodevelopmental Disorders.
Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug resistant epilepsy driven byEpilepsy & behavior reports · 2026Article
- Interactome Analysis of the CC2D1A Scaffold Reveals Novel Neuronal Interactions and a Postsynaptic Role.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2026Article
- A De Novo Loss-of-FunctionChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- CC2D1A causes ciliopathy, intellectual disability, heterotaxy, renal dysplasia, and abnormal CSF flow.Life science alliance · 2024Article
- A nonsenseHeliyon · 2024Article
- Identification and experimental validation of hub genes underlying depressive-like behaviors induced by chronic social defeat stress.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Emerging concepts involving inhibitory and activating RNA functionalization towards the understanding of microcephaly phenotypes and brain diseases in humans.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Systematic gene-disease relationship (GDR) curation unveils 61 gene-disease associations and highlights the impact on genetic testing.Genetics in medicine open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Routine diagnostics is biased towards genes and variants with satisfactory evidence, but rare disorders with only little confirmation of their pathogenicity might be missed. Many of these genes can, however, be considered relevant, although they may have less evidence because they lack OMIM entries or comprise only a small number of publicly available variants from one or a few studies. Here, we present 89 individuals harbouring variants in 77 genes for which only a small amount of public evidence on their clinical significance is available but which we still found to be relevant enough to be reported in routine diagnostics. For 21 genes, we present case reports that confirm the lack or provisionality of OMIM associations (
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.