ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2026
A Novel Approach to Interrogating Whole Genome Sequencing Data to Optimise Clinical Utility.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 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
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of the genomic analytics applied to the Northern Ireland cohort recruited to the 100,000 Genomes Project, focusing on diagnostic yields in first-line analysis and revisiting inconclusive cases with rare diseases.
methodsWhole genome sequencing (WGS) and initial data processing were performed centrally by Genomics England (GEL), consistent with a national protocol. A novel internal approach to variant selection and interpretation was designed using a two-pronged pathway; with initial prioritisation using GEL virtual panels and subsequent Exomiser-mediated reanalysis of remaining undiagnosed cases. Retrospective collection of genomic records was completed for service evaluation.
resultsOf 440 patients recruited 20.2% (n = 89/440) received a monogenic diagnosis; 69.7% (n = 62/89) via the initial interpretation pathway (analysed between 2019 and 2021) and 30.3% (n = 27/89) via the secondary pathway (analysed between 2019 and 2025). The majority of variants missed by the initial analysis were because the diagnostic gene was not included as a target on the applied panel(s) at the time of analysis. The median turnaround time for the initial approach was 644.5 days (range: 315-1342) and for the secondary approach was 1766.5 days (range: 862-2311). The secondary approach was found to be more effective in prioritising pathogenic variants; 69.7% (n = 62/89) versus 89.9% (n = 80/89) p = 0.0008.
conclusionPre-classification variant selection and reanalysis of undiagnosed cases are critical to optimise quality improvement in the clinical delivery of WGS. Variant selection via virtual panels can expedite interpretation but may miss clinically relevant findings, leaving cases undiagnosed. Revisiting these cases gave an additional ~6% yield. For efficient variant selection in both initial and follow-up analysis, a multi-disciplinary approach is required.
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.