ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Opportunistic genomic screening of healthy controls in an Australian biobank.
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.
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.
- Coding or non-coding? The question behind sequencing.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.