Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37523181›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

At-Risk Genomic Findings for Pediatric-Onset Disorders From Genome Sequencing vs Medically Actionable Gene Panel in Proactive Screening of Newborns and Children.

Jorune Balciuniene, Ruby Liu, Lora Bean, Fen Guo, Babi Ramesh Reddy Nallamilli, Naga Guruju, Xiangwen Chen-Deutsch, Rizwan Yousaf, Kristina Fura, Ephrem Chin and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Genomics in Health and Biomedicine.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Assessment of the variant prioritization strategy for genomic newborn screening in the Generation Study.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Data-driven consideration of genetic disorders for global genomic newborn screening programs.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jorune BalciunienePerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Ruby LiuPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Lora BeanPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Fen GuoPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Babi Ramesh Reddy NallamilliPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Naga GurujuPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Xiangwen Chen-DeutschPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Rizwan YousafPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Kristina FuraPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Ephrem ChinPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abhinav MathurPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Zeqiang MaPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Jonathan CarmichaelViaCord LLC, PerkinElmer Inc, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Cristina da SilvaPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Christin CollinsPerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Madhuri HegdePerkinElmer Genomics, PerkinElmer Inc, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
PerkinElmer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although the clinical utility of genome sequencing for critically ill children is well recognized, its utility for proactive pediatric screening is not well explored. Objective: To evaluate molecular findings from screening ostensibly healthy children with genome sequencing compared with a gene panel for medically actionable pediatric conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case series study was conducted among consecutive, apparently healthy children undergoing proactive genetic screening for pediatric disorders by genome sequencing (n = 562) or an exome-based panel of 268 genes (n = 606) from March 1, 2018, through July 31, 2022. Exposures: Genetic screening for pediatric-onset disorders using genome sequencing or an exome-based panel of 268 genes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Molecular findings indicative of genetic disease risk. Results: Of 562 apparently healthy children (286 girls [50.9%]; median age, 29 days [IQR, 9-117 days]) undergoing screening by genome sequencing, 46 (8.2%; 95% CI, 5.9%-10.5%) were found to be at risk for pediatric-onset disease, including 22 children (3.9%) at risk for high-penetrance disorders. Sequence analysis uncovered molecular diagnoses among 32 individuals (5.7%), while copy number variant analysis uncovered molecular diagnoses among 14 individuals (2.5%), including 4 individuals (0.7%) with chromosome scale abnormalities. Overall, there were 47 molecular diagnoses, with 1 individual receiving 2 diagnoses; of the 47 potential diagnoses, 22 (46.8%) were associated with high-penetrance conditions. Pathogenic variants in medically actionable pediatric genes were found in 6 individuals (1.1%), constituting 12.8% (6 of 47) of all diagnoses. At least 1 pharmacogenomic variant was reported for 89.0% (500 of 562) of the cohort. In contrast, of 606 children (293 girls [48.3%]; median age, 26 days [IQR, 10-67 days]) undergoing gene panel screening, only 13 (2.1%; 95% CI, 1.0%-3.3%) resulted in potential childhood-onset diagnoses, a significantly lower rate than those screened by genome sequencing (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series study, genome sequencing as a proactive screening approach for children, due to its unrestrictive gene content and technical advantages in comparison with an exome-based gene panel for medically actionable childhood conditions, uncovered a wide range of heterogeneous high-penetrance pediatric conditions that could guide early interventions and medical management.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingGenomicsChildExomeFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPenetrance

Identifiers

PMID37523181
PMCPMC10391308
OpenAlexW4385406076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.