ArticleCommunications medicine2026
The clinical utility of genome sequencing is multi-dimensional: experience from the Hong Kong Genome Project.
Article in Communications medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing clinical utility of genome sequencing (GS) is essential for healthcare decisions. This study quantified the multidimensional utility of GS using the validated Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE) within a diverse rare disease cohort at the Hong Kong Genome Project.
methodsAdult and paediatric patients suspected of genetic disorders were recruited from the Hong Kong Children's Hospital. Clinical geneticists evaluated GS utility based on 17 items. Total C-GUIDE utility scores and global item scores were calculated, with individual item scores ranging from -2 to 2.
resultsBetween March and July 2024, three clinical geneticists completed 247 C-GUIDE ratings for 245 probands, with 25% receiving positive, 7% inconclusive, and 69% negative GS results. Total C-GUIDE scores ranges from -1 to 30, with a mean of 6.1 (SD = 10.0). Multivariate regression analysis indicates that positive GS findings are associated with a 16.9-point increase in C-GUIDE scores compared to inconclusive or negative results (p < 0.001). Notably, the highest mean scores are observed in psychosocial benefits for patients and families, regardless of GS results. The mean global item score, representing overall assessment of clinical utility, is 0.53 (SD = 0.06). Baseline patient characteristics are not independently associated with C-GUIDE scores.
conclusionsThis study represents the first and largest of its kind in the Asia Pacific region, highlighting the multidimensional benefits of GS and the importance of nationwide Genome Projects. By highlighting that clinical utility is primarily influenced by test results rather than patient characteristics, this study underscores the importance of equitable GS implementation across populations.
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.