ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
Diagnostic yield of clinical exome sequencing in patients with suspected hereditary neuropathy.
Article in Turkish journal of medical 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Hereditary neuropathies exhibit significant genetic heterogeneities, often making molecular diagnosis challenging. Clinical Exome Sequencing (CES) allows the simultaneous evaluation of a wide range of candidate genes, and can be considered an efficient approach to identifying underlying genetic causes. The present study assesses the diagnostic utility of CES in patients with clinically suspected hereditary neuropathy. Materials and methods: Included in the study were 21 patients with clinically suspected hereditary neuropathy who underwent CES. DNA samples were isolated from peripheral blood and subjected to CES on an Illumina NextSeq 2000 system, while a bioinformatics analysis and variant interpretation were performed using Sophia DDM® software. All identified variants were classified according to the most recent American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines. Results: Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in seven patients (33.3%), of whom six (28.5%) had a confirmed molecular diagnosis consistent with the clinical phenotype. Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were detected in nine patients (42.8%), while no clinically relevant variants were found in five (23.8%). Conclusion: CES contributed significantly to the establishment of molecular diagnoses in nearly one-third of the studied cohort. However, the high prevalence of VUS underscores the limitations of current interpretation frameworks, revealing a need for functional validation and familial segregation analyses. Despite these challenges, CES remains a valuable and appropriate diagnostic tool, particularly in resource-limited healthcare settings.
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.