Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41491999›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2026

Defining an approach to empower clinical geneticists to do genomic reanalysis.

Michael M Segal, Meriel McEntagart, Alexander T Deng, Andrea Haworth, Brian King, Anthony Rogers, John Filby, John Short, Mary Grace Hash, Lynette C Rives and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Michael M SegalSimulConsult Inc, Chestnut Hill, MA, United States. medicalgenomics2025@simulconsult.com.
Meriel McEntagartSt George's University NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alexander T DengGuy's & St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Andrea HaworthCongenica, Cambridge, UK.
Brian KingCongenica, Cambridge, UK.
Anthony RogersCongenica, Cambridge, UK.
John FilbyCongenica, Cambridge, UK.
John ShortSt George's University NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mary Grace HashVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Lynette C RivesVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Kimberly M EzellVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.
Undiagnosed Diseases Network
John A PhillipsVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.

Funding

Vanderbilt Center of Excellence for Undiagnosed Disease (VCEUD)U01NS134349 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI JOY D COGAN, Thomas Anthony Cassini · 2023 to 2026
$3.8M
C BRIGGSAE AND C ELEGANS GENOMIC SEQUENCE COMPARISONF32HG000130 · NHGRI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI COUCH, JENNIFER A · 1994 to 1995
–
NHGRI NIH HHS F32 HG000130NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS134349NINDS NIH HHS U01NS134349
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic TestingGenomicsExome SequencingHumansSoftwareBioinformaticsClinical exomeClinical genomicsDiagnostic yieldNGS-based resequencingPhenotype; reevaluationRe-analysisSequence analysisSystematic reanalysis

Identifiers

PMID41491999
PMCPMC12777253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.