ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Drivers of Diagnostic Delay in Mitochondrial Disease: Missed Recognition of Canonical Features.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic delay is common in mitochondrial disease, and its drivers remain unclear despite advances in molecular diagnostics. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 58 individuals with molecularly confirmed mitochondrial disease at the Mount Sinai Mitochondrial Disease Clinic, diagnosed after 2016. Diagnostic delay was partitioned into intervals from symptom onset to clinical suspicion, and from suspicion to molecular diagnosis. Demographic, phenotypic, and genetic data were abstracted from health records, and Human Phenotype Ontology terms were compared before and after diagnosis using ClinPhen. Results: Most delays occurred between symptom onset and clinical suspicion (mean 8.17 years) rather than after suspicion (mean 0.63 years), yielding a mean total delay of 8.8 years (median 3.0). Delay decreased sharply by year of birth (r = -0.99, p < 1.5 × 10^-48) and symptom onset (r = -0.98, p < 1.4 × 10^-36), but showed no meaningful trend with year of diagnosis. Developmental delay predicted shorter diagnostic intervals. Canonical features such as seizures, hypotonia, and stroke were frequently documented years before suspicion, underscoring missed opportunities. Conclusions: Diagnostic delay reflects missed recognition rather than testing limitations. Systematic capture of early phenotypes and AI/NLP-based mining of electronic health records could proactively flag patients for reflexive sequencing, shortening diagnostic delay.
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.