ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Data-driven consideration of genetic disorders for global genomic newborn screening programs.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Over 30 international studies are exploring newborn sequencing (NBSeq) to expand the range of genetic disorders included in newborn screening. Substantial variability in gene selection across programs exists, highlighting the need for a systematic approach to prioritize genes. Methods: We assembled a dataset comprising 25 characteristics about each of the 4,390 genes included in 27 NBSeq programs. We used regression analysis to identify several predictors of inclusion, and developed a machine learning model to rank genes for public health consideration. Results: Among 27 NBSeq programs, the number of genes analyzed ranged from 134 to 4,299, with only 74 (1.7%) genes included by over 80% of programs. The most significant associations with gene inclusion across programs were presence on the US Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (inclusion increase of 74.7%, CI: 71.0%-78.4%), robust evidence on the natural history (29.5%, CI: 24.6%-34.4%) and treatment efficacy (17.0%, CI: 12.3%- 21.7%) of the associated genetic disease. A boosted trees machine learning model using 13 predictors achieved high accuracy in predicting gene inclusion across programs (AUC = 0.915, R² = 84%). Conclusion: The machine learning model developed here provides a ranked list of genes that can adapt to emerging evidence and regional needs, enabling more consistent and informed gene selection in NBSeq initiatives.
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.