Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42026177›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026

Opportunistic genomic screening of healthy controls in an Australian biobank.

Lucas A Mitchell, Mary-Anne Young, Thomas Ohnesorg, Matthew Hobbs, Joseph Copty, Jaye S Brown, Alex W Hewitt, Joseph E Powell, Daniel G Macathur, Amanda M Willis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Coding or non-coding? The question behind sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Lucas A MitchellClinical Translation and Engagement Platform, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5160-3299
Mary-Anne YoungClinical Translation and Engagement Platform, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2493-6394
Thomas OhnesorgClinical Translation and Engagement Platform, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
Matthew HobbsData Science Platform, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6879-1369
Joseph CoptyChildren's Cancer Institute, Lowy Cancer Centre, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Jaye S BrownGenomics and Inherited Disease Program, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
Alex W HewittMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5123-5999
Joseph E PowellTranslational Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
Daniel G MacathurCentre for Population Genomics, Garvan Institute of Medical Research and UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5771-2290
Amanda M WillisClinical Translation and Engagement Platform, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. a.willis@garvan.org.au.ORCID 0000-0002-1529-3833

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leveraging existing genomic data to opportunistically screen for secondary findings (SFs) can identify individuals at increased genetic risk who may be missed by criteria-based testing. While some guidelines support returning actionable SFs with professional support, there is a gap in consistent practice regarding the return process. This study reports the outcomes of opportunistic genomic screening in an Australian biobank. Whole genome sequencing data from 1057 healthy participants in the Tasmanian Ophthalmic Biobank (TOB), all of white European ancestry, underwent opportunistic screening for pathogenic (P) or likely pathogenic (LP) variants affecting genes in the ACMG SF v3.0 list. Variants of interest were manually curated, and only P/LP variants were returned. Actionable SFs (P/LP variants) were identified in 3.6% (38/1057) of participants. The most common genes were HFE (haemochromatosis), LDLR (Familial Hypercholesterolemia), and TP53 (Li-Fraumeni syndrome). Of the 38 participants with a variant, 27 received their result, with two-thirds being newly informed. Ten participants were referred to clinical genetics for diagnostic confirmation, while seven declined to proceed. Opportunistic screening identified a clinically significant incidence of actionable SFs in a healthy biobank cohort. There was high participant interest in receiving results, although subsequent uptake of clinical referral remains a challenge.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksGenetic TestingAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleGenomicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedReturn of Individual Research ResultsWhole Genome Sequencing

Identifiers

PMID42026177
PMCPMC13341751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.