Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41107899›Full record

ReviewGenome medicine2025

Recommendations for bioinformatics in clinical practice.

Ksenia Lavrichenko, Emilie Sofie Engdal, Rasmus L Marvig, Anders Jemt, Jone Marius Vignes, Henrikki Almusa, Kristine Bilgrav Saether, Eiríkur Briem, Eva Caceres, Edda María Elvarsdóttir and 24 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Rewriting the RNA code: an mFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

34 authors.

Ksenia LavrichenkoOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Emilie Sofie EngdalRigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rasmus L MarvigRigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anders JemtKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jone Marius VignesHaukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Henrikki AlmusaInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland, Helsinki, Finland.
Kristine Bilgrav SaetherKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Eiríkur BriemLandspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Eva CaceresKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Edda María ElvarsdóttirLandspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Magnús Halldór GíslasonRigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Maria K HaanpääTurku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Viktor HenmyrSkåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Ronja HotakainenHelsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Eevi KaasinenHelsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Roan KanningaUniversity Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Sofia KhanHelsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Mary Gertrude Lie-NielsenHaukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Majbritt Busk MadsenRigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Niklas MählerUniversity Hospital of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden.
Khurram MaqboolKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ramprasad NeethirajKTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karl NyrénKarolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Minna PaavolaTurku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Peter PruisscherKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ying ShengOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ashish Kumar SinghOlav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Aashish SrivastavaHaukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Thomas K StautlandHaukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Daniel T AndreasenAarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Esmee Ten Berk de BoerKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Søren VangAarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Valtteri WirtaKarolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Frederik Otzen BaggerRigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. frederik.otzen.bagger@regionh.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNext-generation sequencing (NGS) is well established in clinical diagnostics, and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly becoming the method of choice, as a result of lower prices and robust comprehensive data. While guidelines exist for variant interpretation and laboratory quality considerations, there remains a need for standardised bioinformatics practices to ensure clinical consensus, accuracy, reproducibility and comparability.

methodsThis article presents consensus recommendations developed by 13 clinical bioinformatics units participating in the Nordic Alliance for Clinical Genomics (NACG) by expert bioinformaticians working in clinical production. The recommendations are based on clinical practice and focus on analysis types, test and validation, standardisation and accreditation, as well as core competencies and technical management required for clinical bioinformatics operations.

resultsKey recommendations include adopting the hg38 genome build as reference, and a standard set of recommended analyses, including the use of multiple tools for structural variant (SV) calling and in-house data sets for filtering recurrent calls. Clinical bioinformatics in production should operate at standards similar to ISO 15189, utilising off-grid clinical-grade high-performance computing systems, standardised file formats and strict version control. Reproducibility should be ensured through containerised software environments. Pipelines must be documented and tested for accuracy and reproducibility, minimally covering unit, integration and end-to-end testing. Standard truth sets such as GIAB and SEQC2 for germline and somatic variant calling, respectively, should be supplemented by recall testing of real human samples that have been previously tested using a validated method. Data integrity must be verified using file hashing, while sample identity must be confirmed through fingerprinting and genetically inferred identification markers such as sex and relatedness. Finally, clinical bioinformatics should encompass diverse skills, including software development, data management, quality assurance and domain expertise in human genetics.

conclusionsThese recommendations provide a consensus framework for standardising bioinformatics practices across clinical WGS applications and can serve as a practical guide to facilities that are new to large-scale sequencing-based diagnostics, or as a reference for those who already run high-volume clinical production using NGS.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareWhole Genome Sequencing

Identifiers

PMID41107899
PMCPMC12535132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.