ArticleGenetics in medicine open2026
Study design with responsible return of results for a fully remote genome sequencing study in individuals with Prader-Willi syndrome.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is a complex neurodevelopmental genetic disorder affecting multiple systems. We describe the design and feasibility of a fully remote, patient group-led, genome sequencing (GS) study that will evaluate the impact of genetic variants on the frequency and severity of PWS clinical symptoms, with responsible return of results. Methods: A total of 50 participants, or their legally authorized representative, provided consent via videoconference discussion and selected which genetic results would be returned. Participants were sent dried blood spot cards for GS and a buccal swab kit for orthogonal pharmacogenomics analysis. A subset of legally authorized representative LARs participated in semistructured interviews about their GS experience. Results: All 50 participants completed the study and elected to receive their primary findings, and 48 of 49 participants who consented to receive pharmacogenomic information returned the buccal swab kit. Forty-seven participants consented to receive secondary findings per current American College of Medical Genetics guidelines; 2 had actionable results, with online genetic counseling support provided. Three families received medically significant findings related to variants associated with blood clot formation, which is important because individuals with PWS are at an increased risk for thrombotic events. Interview participants expressed a high degree of interest in the findings and emphasized the ease of participating in the study but felt the process was lengthy. Conclusion: A fully remote GS study is feasible to perform within a rare disease population, and responsibly returning genetic findings that are important to families is achievable.
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.