ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2026
Genomic newborn screening: data retention for research and clinical reuse.
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. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The integration of genomic sequencing into public health newborn screening (NBS), gNBS, could identify far more children that would meet screening guidelines than existing biochemical NBS. The retention of genomic data from gNBS could have huge benefits for research and could also enable potential clinical reuse. Many different ethical frameworks can support not seeking parental permission for traditional NBS, and indeed, most programs around the world do not do so, and are either mandatory or allow for an opt-out. Many NBS programs retain the underlying sample for anonymized or pseudonymized/coded research. This is proving to be a controversial aspect of NBS. While the appropriate consent regime(s) for the screening aims for gNBS remain unclear, we put forward arguments for the appropriate consent regimes for the retention and use of genomic data in gNBS. We review the different ethical frameworks that justify screening on the one hand, and further storage and uses of the data on the other. We argue that parental permission via an informed choice should be sought for genomic data retention for research purposes, that individual genomic data may be retained by the program for QA/QI purposes (but only for long enough to permit these purposes), and that no parental permission is needed to update aggregated genomic databases (e.g., allele frequencies). For clinical recontact, the appropriate consent regime for retaining genomic data will depend on the jurisdiction, but parents should be very thoroughly educated on the prospect of re-contact if this is planned.
Identifiers
42086741What 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.