ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
SeqFirst: Building equity access to a precise genetic diagnosis in critically ill newborns.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Evaluation Practices for Neonates with Congenital Heart Disease in Pediatric Cardiac Intensive Care Units: Findings from a Multi-institutional Survey.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Genomic Strategies in Pediatric Care: Addressing Rare Diseases in Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Rapid genomic sequencing in the NICU: Who to test and why.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Benchmarking long-read variant sensitivity across ONT and PacBio platforms using known clinically reported variants in a cohort of critically ill newborns.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Role of next generation sequencing in neonatal diagnosis and screening.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Review
- Long-read MitoScope reveals tissue-resolved somatic mitochondrial variation and landscape of nuclear-embedded mitochondrial sequences.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Experiencing acute genomic care: perspectives from parents in the neonatal and paediatric intensive care units towards rapid genomic sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- A scalable approach for genomic-first rare disorder detection in a healthcare-based population.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Genomic sequencing technologies for rare disease in mainstream healthcare: the current state of implementation.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Review
- GREGoR: accelerating genomics for rare diseases.Nature · 2025Article
- Exclusion-based exome sequencing in critically ill adults 18-40 years old has a 24% diagnostic rate and finds racial disparities in access to genetic testing.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- GREGoR: Accelerating Genomics for Rare Diseases.ArXiv · 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
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Access to a precise genetic diagnosis (PrGD) in critically ill newborns is limited and inequitable because the complex inclusion criteria used to prioritize testing eligibility omit many patients at high risk for a genetic condition. SeqFirst-neo is a program to test whether a genotype-driven workflow using simple, broad exclusion criteria to assess eligibility for rapid genome sequencing (rGS) increases access to a PrGD in critically ill newborns. All 408 newborns admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit between January 2021 and February 2022 were assessed, and of 240 eligible infants, 126 were offered rGS (i.e., intervention group [IG]) and compared to 114 infants who received conventional care in parallel (i.e., conventional care group [CCG]). A PrGD was made in 62/126 (49.2%) IG neonates compared to 11/114 (9.7%) CCG infants. The odds of receiving a PrGD were ∼9 times greater in the IG vs. the CCG, and this difference was maintained at 12 months follow-up. Access to a PrGD in the IG vs. CCG differed significantly between infants identified as non-White (34/74, 45.9% vs. 6/29, 20.7%; p = 0.024) and Black (8/10, 80.0% vs. 0/4; p = 0.015). Neonatologists were significantly less successful at predicting a PrGD in non-White than non-Hispanic White infants. The use of a standard workflow in the IG with a PrGD revealed that a PrGD would have been missed in 26/62 (42%) infants. The use of simple, broad exclusion criteria that increase access to genetic testing significantly increases access to a PrGD, improves access equity, and results in fewer missed diagnoses.
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.