ArticleJournal of community genetics2026
Expanding beyond the exome: identifying pediatric patients best suited for genome sequencing.
Article in Journal of community 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of genome sequencing (GS) versus exome sequencing (ES) in a pediatric population, with a focus on determining whether GS offers a significant advantage over ES in identifying genetic variants.
methodsA retrospective analysis of prospectively allocated pediatric patients was performed on 297 pediatric patients who underwent next-generation sequencing. Of these, 59.6% (177) underwent only ES, 32.3% (96) underwent only GS, and 8.1% (24) had both tests. Diagnostic positivity rates were compared between ES and GS, and subgroup analyses were performed based on clinical characteristics.
resultsGS demonstrated a higher positivity rate (51.7%) compared to ES (42.8%), with a 95.8% concordance between tests in patients who underwent both. However, the added diagnostic yield of GS was less than 10%. Greater GS positivity was identified in a group of children with neurological, musculoskeletal, growth disorder and craniofacial anomalies. Deep intronic variants were identified in two cases that underwent GS, but only one had also undergone ES. Limitations in medical record completeness and data quality were noted, which could affect the study’s generalizability.
conclusionGS offered a modest increase in diagnostic yield over ES, particularly for detecting deep intronic variants. Some conditions had greater GS positivity, but the interpretation deserves caution as issues regarding homogeneity and sample selection may have influenced this result.
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.