ArticleGenetics in medicine open2023
Clinically actionable incidental and secondary parental genomic findings after proband exome sequencing: Yield and dilemmas.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Twenty-Two Years of Prenatal Testing for Suspected Monogenic Disorders: A Retrospective Single-Center Experience in Western Romania.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Lost in .*VCF Translation. From Data Fragmentation to Precision Genomics: Technical, Ethical, and Interpretive Challenges in the Post-Sequencing Era.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Exome sequencing (ES) could detect pathogenic variants that are unrelated to the test indication, including findings that may have an impact for patients considering conception/reproduction (reproduction-related findings [RRFs]), deliberately searched secondary findings (SFs), and incidental findings (IFs). We aimed to examine the detection rate of clinically actionable findings and to present counseling dilemmas in 840 parents of probands undergoing clinical trio ES testing. Methods: RRFs/IFs/SFs were actively searched for in the parents as part of ES data analysis. Variants were filtered by frequency, mode of inheritance, ClinVar classification, presence in local pathogenic variant databases, and protein-truncating effect. Results: In 14 of 420 families (3.3%), 15 RRFs were detected. Shared parental heterozygous status for autosomal recessive disorders was identified in 23.3% of consanguineous and 1.8% of nonconsanguineous couples. SFs were found in 22 of 840 individuals (2.6%), including 15 variants (7 founder variants) in cancer-predisposing genes and 4 in cardiac disease-related genes. IFs were found in 3 individuals without reported symptoms. Overall, variants of potential medical importance were detected in 9.3% of families. Challenges related to the decision whether to report variants included unreported parental phenotype, presymptomatic testing, variable disease expressivity, potential medical implications for children who are already born, and medicolegal aspects. Conclusion: Active search for RRFs, IFs, and SFs yields a high rate of findings, which may contribute to individual medical care in parents of probands undergoing ES. A structured approach to overcome the challenges associated with reporting these findings should be considered before such an active search can be broadly adopted in clinical genomic data analysis.
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.