ArticleGenetics in medicine open2025
Clinical utility of runs of homozygosity in the identification of genetic causes in individuals with rare diseases.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Chromosomal Microarray Analysis in Critically Ill Neonates and Children: Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Utility.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical utility of runs of homozygosity (ROH) in identifying the genetic causes of rare diseases in our patient population. Methods: All unrelated patients ( Results: A total of 947 patients had at least 1 ROH > 5 Mb, and the majority of these (75%) were recurrent. One of the recurrent ROH, located at 16p11.2p11.1, was significantly increased in our patient population, especially in the Hispanic/Latino and Native Americans, compared with the general population. Approximately 1% (26/2787) of patients had possible uniparental disomy (UPD) and follow-up genetic testing on 2 patients revealed paternal UPD(14) in 1 patient and possible paternal UPD(6) in the other. Deleterious homozygous variants were found in 14 of 78 patients with nonrecurrent ROH who underwent follow-up sequencing studies. Of these 14 patients, causal genes were found to be within the ROH in 12 (15.4%) with causal genes within ROH smaller than 5 Mb in 5 patients, and 4 of these 5 patients were Native Americans. Deleterious homozygous variants were detected in 2 patients without nonrecurrent ROH; however, these were not located within ROH 1 Mb and larger. Conclusion: Our results highlight the importance of investigating ROH 1 Mb and larger for deleterious homozygous variants in patients with nonrecurrent ROH 5 Mb and larger to identify the genetic basis of the presenting features.
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.