ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2026
Measuring disease likelihood in genomic ascertainment.
Article in American journal of human 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the yield, predictive power, and utility of a secondary finding is critical for policy development and can help inform discussions for population screening. Because American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Secondary Findings guidelines are applied in diverse testing contexts, we recruited participants from multiple sources to address these questions. We assessed our first 1,500 inquiries to review the disorders/genes that were returned to these individuals. After eligibility screening, we enrolled 227 recipients and completed genotyping, cascade testing, and phenotyping efforts for 163 probands. From evaluating these families, it became clear that there were highly variable outcomes for the diagnostic yield of secondary findings. To objectively and quantitatively assess this, we developed a method to measure the likelihood that the family was, in fact, affected with the disorder associated with the secondary finding variant. We assessed this in detail for 59 families who had a secondary finding of BRCA1- or BRCA2-related cancer predisposition. Our estimates of the likelihood of a valid clinicomolecular diagnosis ranged from 26.2% to 100%. Over half (51%) of the families met criteria for diagnostic testing, indicating that diagnostic testing for these disorders is underused and that secondary findings testing is being applied inappropriately to these families. These results will be useful for policy refinement for secondary findings and are also relevant to considerations of population genomic screening.
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.