ArticleBMC medical genomics2026
Defining an approach to empower clinical geneticists to do genomic reanalysis.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSequencing reanalysis can benefit from the inclusion of new information about the patient and from the literature. We studied approaches needed to make reanalysis part of routine follow-up by clinical geneticists.
methodsReanalysis used the SimulConsult diagnostic decision support software, which generates a pertinence metric for gene zygosities determined from the variant table and the patient's findings. Twenty patients had routine exome sequencing at St. George's Hospital (London, UK). Twenty were admitted to the Undiagnosed Diseases Network at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and had all remained undiagnosed despite previous evaluations and sequencing.
resultsFor St. George's cases, reanalysis picked 7 of the 7 initial diagnoses plus 2 diagnoses found later, and suggested another diagnosis with a gene absent from the variant table. For VUMC, reanalysis picked 5 of 8 diagnoses that were in the variant tables, and suggested a non-coding variant absent from the variant table.
conclusionRapid reanalysis by clinicians could increase the yield of genetic diagnosis with minimal effort and no new lab expenses. For the routine cases at St. George's, diagnostic yield increased from 7 to 10 (43%). Capabilities that could further increase yield include joint variant calling, robust phenotyping, clinical correlation after sequencing, and adding CNV data to variant tables.
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.