ArticleHuman genomics2024
Whole-exome sequencing to identify causative variants in juvenile sudden cardiac death.
Article in Human genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular mechanisms of sudden unexplained death and recent updates on molecular autopsy strategies for forensic investigation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Molecular Pathology of Cardiomyopathies: Bridging Morphology, Genomics, and Clinical Phenotypes.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Retrospective analysis-based prioritization and degradation pattern characterization of sudden unexplained death susceptibility genes.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Unraveling Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection in Sudden Cardiac Death: Integrating Pathology, Genetics, and Molecular Autopsy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Sudden Cardiac Death: The Role of Molecular Autopsy with Next-Generation Sequencing.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundJuvenile sudden cardiac death (SCD) remains unexplained in approximately 40% of cases, leading to a significant emotional burden for the victims' families and society. Comprehensive investigations are essential to uncover its elusive causes and enable cascade family screening. This study aimed to enhance the identification of likely causative variants in juvenile SCD cases (age ≤ 50 years), particularly when autopsy findings are inconclusive.
resultsAutopsy revealed diagnostic structural abnormalities in 46%, non-diagnostic findings in 23%, and structurally normal hearts in 31% of cases. Whole-exome sequencing (WES), refined through a customized virtual gene panel was used to identify variants. These variants were then evaluated using a multidisciplinary approach and a structured variant prioritization scheme. Our extended approach identified likely causative variants in 69% of cases, outperforming the diagnostic yields of both the cardio panel and standard susceptibility gene analysis (50% and 16%, respectively). The extended cardio panel achieved an 80% diagnostic yield in cases with structurally normal hearts, demonstrating its efficacy in challenging scenarios. Notably, half of the positive cases harboured a single variant, while the remainder had two or more variants.
conclusionThis study highlights the efficacy of a multidisciplinary approach employing WES and a tailored virtual gene panel to elucidate the aetiology of juvenile SCD. The findings support the expansion of genetic testing using tailored gene panels and prioritization schemes as part of routine autopsy evaluations to improve the identification of causative variants and potentially facilitate early diagnosis in first-degree relatives.
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.