ReviewNature genetics2026
Near-perfect genome sequencing in medical genetics.
Review in Nature genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technological Advances in Molecular Diagnostic Methods for Hereditary Diseases in Preconception and Prenatal Settings.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Personalized reference genome-based pipeline reveals comprehensive haplotype-resolved views of cancer genomes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical genetics currently operates through a fragmented diagnostic cascade built around short-read sequencing technologies that carry well-documented blind spots, including regions of high sequence homology, tandem repeats and segmental duplications, as well as large or complex structural variants, invisible base modifications and a lack of variant phasing. We propose that long-read genome sequencing should be considered as one pillar of a broader technological convergence encompassing diploid genome assembly, pangenome references and artificial intelligence-driven variant interpretation, termed near-perfect genome sequencing (NPGS). We further propose a Bayesian framework in which genomic completeness itself constitutes interpretive evidence for variant classification. This principle has direct implications for the interpretation of variants of uncertain significance in clinical practice. We highlight the potential of NPGS across postnatal, prenatal and oncological settings and outline a staged implementation roadmap toward the one-test paradigm. We also address real-world implementation challenges, including cost, computational demand, equity and ethical considerations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42362790What 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.