ArticleGenetics in medicine open2026
Rapid targeted analysis of the genome: Rapid genomic sequencing in critically ill infants.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Genomic Strategies in Pediatric Care: Addressing Rare Diseases in Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We developed a genome sequencing-based test (Rapid Targeted Analysis of the Genome for Infants [rTAG-I]) to minimize turnaround time while maximizing diagnostic yield and access to rapid sequencing for critically ill infants. We sought to create a system of predicting which infants would have a molecular finding. Methods: We performed a prospective observational study of infants referred for genetics consult who received rTAG-I testing, which analyzes 3183 curated genes with phenotype-agnostic prioritization of pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants. Infants were stratified by perceived likelihood of a diagnostic result and divided into "Likely," "Uncertain," and "Not Likely." We also assessed whether reportable findings correlated with patient phenotypes. Results: We identified reportable findings in 133/400 (33%) infants. Access to rapid testing increased from 1% to 20% of all infants hospitalized in the neonatal/infant intensive care unit and cardiac intensive care unit, with a median turnaround time of 4.9 days. rTAG-I performed as well as exome/genome sequencing. Clinically associated results were identified in 59% of the "Likely" group and 9% of the "Not Likely" group. Conclusion: rTAG-I produced a high rate of reportable findings with a rapid turnaround time. Our ability to predict infants who would benefit most was imperfect, reinforcing that broad access to genome-based testing is still required.
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.