ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Not Forgotten: Patient Experiences with Genetic Variant Reclassifications.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Genetic variant reclassification is increasingly common in clinical genomics, yet limited data describe how patients experience re-contact and variant reclassification in routine clinical care. Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 adult patients who received a variant reclassification following routine clinical genetic testing. Interviews explored emotional responses, communication experiences, and perceived value of genetic testing. Data were analyzed using Template Analysis, a form of thematic analysis. Results: Three overarching themes were identified. Participants identified a need for improved communication of reclassified results, particularly with respect to timing, modality, and contextualization (Theme 1). Experiences with reclassification also shaped perceptions of the value of genetic testing, with most participants viewing testing as worthwhile despite its evolving nature (Theme 2). Finally, many participants interpreted reclassification as evidence of personalized and ongoing care, reinforcing trust in genetic testing and biomedical research (Theme 3). Participants generally preferred to be informed of reclassified results regardless of reclassification type, although the direction of reclassification influenced emotional responses and preferred modes of communication. Downgrades from variants of uncertain significance to benign or likely benign were widely viewed as meaningful by participants. Conclusion: Variant reclassification was experienced as a signal of personalized, ongoing care. Timely, contextualized, patient-centered re-contact practices may reduce uncertainty, strengthen trust, and help patients not feel forgotten.
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.