ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2026
The landscape of 605 genetically confirmed distinct rare diseases in a single center in Mexico (2005-2025).
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 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.
- Mucopolysaccharidosis type IIIA and IIIC phenotypic progression: A case series.Molecular genetics and metabolism reports · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundTimely diagnosis and therapeutic management of rare diseases (RDs) are greatly hampered by limited clinical information and a lack of reliable epidemiological data. RDs constitute a heterogeneous group of disorders, and although they have become major public health issues, there is a paucity of both population- and disease-based data on them, particularly in developing countries. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized the diagnosis of these disorders by allowing fast and cost-effective identification of disease-causing genetic variants, as well as the development of reliable, molecular diagnosis–based registries. Presented here is a 20-year retrospective, single-center study of molecularly confirmed RDs, with causal variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic according to the ACMG criteria. Only disorders with an OMIM disease number or publications regarding them were considered.
resultsA total of 605 RDs, classified in 14 different clinical categories, were genetically confirmed. The most common diseases were ocular disorders (34%), neurodevelopmental disorders (23.5%), and neurological disorders (11%). Among the 605 identified disorders, 326 were autosomal dominant, 225 were autosomal recessive, 43 were X-linked, 7 had mitochondrial inheritance, and 4 were caused by somatic mosaicism. A total of 534 genes/genomic regions were demonstrated to carry disease-causing variants.
conclusionThis is the first catalog of genetically confirmed RDs in Mexico, and it can be considered a first step toward a better characterization of the spectrum of such diseases in the country. Patients’ increasing access to diagnostic exome and/or genome sequencing tests has enabled unprecedented success in RD characterization at the genetic level. The vast majority of genetic diagnoses in our series (~ 75%) occurred in the past eight years, which coincides with a wider availability of NGS testing in Mexico. Our catalog is freely accessible through an online database ( https://0198bb3b-526c-b682-3f6d-c5894015db9b.share.connect.posit.cloud/ ), which is intended to be continuously maintained, extended, and updated with contributions from other health professionals in the field of RDs in Mexico. This resource might accelerate the characterization of such diseases in the country, and it may also play a role in the development of a reliable national registry of RD patients.
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.