ArticleBMC medical genomics2025
Improving newborn screening accuracy through genome sequencing, targeted metabolomics, and machine learning.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning, Large Language Models, and Multimodal AI for Diagnosing Pediatric Rare Diseases: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The new frontier of newborn screening: integrating genomics, metabolomics, and data science for inborn errors of metabolism.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Review
- Decoding rare inherited metabolic disorders: advancing precision in screening and diagnosis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNewborn screening (NBS) enables early detection of metabolic disorders, but current tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) methods often lead to false positives and require confirmatory testing, causing diagnostic delays. We evaluated whether integrating genome sequencing, expanded metabolite profiling, and artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) could improve the accuracy of NBS.
methodsWe analyzed dried blood spots (DBS) from 119 screen-positive cases identified by the California NBS program across four disorders: GA-I, PA/MMA, OTCD, and VLCADD. Genome sequencing was performed to identify variants in condition-related genes using ACMG guidelines, and an AI/ML classifier trained on previously generated metabolomic data was applied to differentiate true and false positives.
resultsGenome sequencing confirmed 89% (31/35) of true positives based on the presence of two reportable variants. Among 84 false positives, 74% (62) had no variant, while 26% (22) carried a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant or rare VUS in a condition-related gene. For VLCADD, half of false positives (15/29) were ACADVL variant carriers (P = 4.66 × 10⁻⁷). VLCADD biomarker levels were highest in patients, intermediate in carriers, and lowest in non-carriers, indicating that ACADVL variants elevate biomarker levels and increase false-positive rates. Metabolomics with AI/ML detected all true positives (100% sensitivity), while genome sequencing reduced false positives by 98.8%.
conclusionTargeted metabolomics with AI/ML showed high sensitivity for identifying true positives, though its ability to reduce false positives varied by condition. Genome sequencing effectively reduced false positives but lacked sufficient sensitivity as a standalone test. The elevated false-positive rate among pathogenic variant carriers underscores the potential value of parental or prenatal carrier screening to improve NBS accuracy. Integrating genomic and metabolomic data may enhance NBS precision and enable earlier diagnosis and intervention for rare diseases.
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.