ArticleClinical genetics2023
Increased diagnostic yield from negative whole genome-slice panels using automated reanalysis.
Article in Clinical genetics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated reanalysis of genomic data for rare disease diagnostics at scale.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- GREGoR: accelerating genomics for rare diseases.Nature · 2025Article
- Genome sequencing reveals the impact of pseudoexons in rare genetic disease.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025Article
- Overcoming challenges associated with broad sharing of human genomic data.Nature genetics · 2025Review
- GREGoR: Accelerating Genomics for Rare Diseases.ArXiv · 2024Article
- Genetics of inherited peripheral neuropathies and the next frontier: looking backwards to progress forwards.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2024Review
- Diagnostic yield of exome and genome sequencing after non-diagnostic multi-gene panels in patients with single-system diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the diagnostic yield using genome-slice panel reanalysis in the clinical setting using an automated phenotype/gene ranking system. We analyzed whole genome sequencing (WGS) data produced from clinically ordered panels built as bioinformatic slices for 16 clinically diverse, undiagnosed cases referred to the Pediatric Mendelian Genomics Research Center, an NHGRI-funded GREGoR Consortium site. Genome-wide reanalysis was performed using Moon™, a machine-learning-based tool for variant prioritization. In five out of 16 cases, we discovered a potentially clinically significant variant. In four of these cases, the variant was found in a gene not included in the original panel due to phenotypic expansion of a disorder or incomplete initial phenotyping of the patient. In the fifth case, the gene containing the variant was included in the original panel, but being a complex structural rearrangement with intronic breakpoints outside the clinically analyzed regions, it was not initially identified. Automated genome-wide reanalysis of clinical WGS data generated during targeted panels testing yielded a 25% increase in diagnostic findings and a possibly clinically relevant finding in one additional case, underscoring the added value of analyses versus those routinely performed in the clinical setting.
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.