ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Determinants of DNA-sequence-based Diagnostic Yield in the CSER Consortium.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Diagnostic yield from exome and genome sequencing varies widely across studies. It remains unclear how much of this variation reflects patient-level factors (e.g., sex, clinical features, race/ethnicity, genetic ancestry) versus site-level practices such as sequencing modality or variant interpretation workflows. We aimed to quantify the contributions of these factors to diagnostic outcomes across five U.S. clinical sequencing sites. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 3,008 prenatal, neonatal, and pediatric cases from the NHGRI Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium (2017-2023). Clinical indications spanned neurodevelopmental, neurological, immunological, metabolic, craniofacial, skeletal, cardiac, prenatal, and oncologic presentations. Genetic ancestry was inferred from sequencing data, and variants were interpreted using ACMG/AMP guidelines to classify DNA-based diagnoses. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate associations between diagnostic yield and fixed effects (sex, prenatal status, isolated cancer, number of clinical indications, sequencing modality, race/ethnicity, and genetic ancestry), while modeling study site as a random effect to quantify between-site variation. Results: The overall diagnostic yield was 19.0%. Multiple clinical indications (OR=1.47, 95% CI 1.20-1.80, p<0.001) were associated with higher diagnostic yield, and male sex (OR=0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.96, p=0.017) and prenatal status (OR=0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90, p=0.012) were associated with lower yield. Sequencing modality, race/ethnicity, genetic ancestry, and isolated cancer were not statistically significantly associated with diagnostic outcomes.. A model without fixed effects attributed ~10% of variance in diagnostic yield to between-site differences. After adjusting for covariates, site-level variance decreased to 5.7%, indicating consistent variation across sites not explained by measured patient factors. Conclusion: Across five sites, patient-level clinical features influenced diagnostic yield, but substantial site-level variation remained even after adjustment. Differences in variant interpretation, or case-classification practices may contribute to this residual variability. Further efforts to increase consistency in exome- and genome-sequencing diagnostic workflows may help reduce inter-site differences.
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.