ArticleJournal of medical genetics2026
How do clinician and parent-reported data differ? An analysis of similarity and difference in the datasets from a cross-syndrome genetics cohort study (GenROC).
Article in Journal of medical genetics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParent/patient-reported (PRD) datasets provide ready access to phenotypic data for monogenic neurodevelopmental disorders, yet their concordance with clinical data is unclear.
methodsIn the GenROC study, 547 children (mean age 7.6 years, balanced sex ratio) had parallel parent-reported web questionnaires and clinician-reported (CRD) Human Phenotype Ontology proformas. We compared the two sources per participant by system, gene and gene group and overall for quantity, detail and similarity.
results547 probands were analysed ranging in age from infancy to 16 years (mean 7.6) with similar gender distribution. PRD provided more terms for dental, gastroenterology, immunology and respiratory systems and for vision (p<0.001 for all) and to a lesser degree for cardiac (p=0.0012). CRD provides more detail than PRD for most gene subgroups, combined systems and for neurology (p<0.001). Similarity scores were low overall per participant (mean 0.38 for combined). Similarity scores were highest for cardiac (mean 0.74) and lowest for Ear/Nose/Throat(ENT) (mean 0.34). There was minimal difference in similarity scores across gene groups or between the top 10 genes-scaffold adaptor gene groups had the highest (mean 0.43) as did
conclusionsParents reported more common childhood phenotypes, such as asthma and dental issues, while clinicians provided clinical phenotype descriptors, such as brain morphology and seizure semiology. It is important to understand the differences when designing studies and using datasets to appreciate their strengths and limitations.
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.