ArticleThe application of clinical genetics2026
Genealogical Identification and Short Tandem Repeat-Based Verification of Suspected Consanguinity in Mongolian Families.
Article in The application of clinical genetics, 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: The prevalence of consanguineous marriages remains high in several regions worldwide, particularly the Middle East and South Asia, with a reported rate of 58%. However, the prevalence and genetic characteristics of consanguineous marriages in Mongolia are not well studied. This study aimed to estimate the frequency of consanguineous marriages in selected Mongolian populations, using genealogical and short tandem repeat (STR) analyses. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Institute of Biomedicine at the Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences. A total of 574 individuals from 185 families across 43 soums in three provinces (X1, X2, and X3) were included. Genealogical analysis was used to construct pedigree-based consanguinity profiles, and STR analysis was performed to validate biological relatedness in selected families. Results: Seventeen families were consanguineous, with a mean inbreeding coefficient of 0.089 ± 0.136, whereas 42 families were classified as suspected consanguinity. Among the confirmed cases, seven families with complete biological samples were further analyzed using STR markers, of which five showed molecular evidence of consanguinity (probabilities, 76.18-98.84%). The STR analysis of 29 families classified as suspected or non-consanguineous identified 13 families as non-consanguineous and 10 families showing possible or indeterminate relatedness. Notably, six families initially classified as suspected or non-consanguineous demonstrated molecular evidence of consanguinity (probabilities, 70.75-99.85%). Genetic diversity analysis revealed reduced heterozygosity in offspring from consanguineous families (expected heterozygosity [HE] = 0.7580, observed heterozygosity[HO] = 0.7045) compared with offspring from non-consanguineous families (HE = 0.7858, HO = 0.8110), with a significant reduction in HO ( Conclusion: This study demonstrates the value of integrating genealogical and STR-based molecular approaches for the assessment of consanguinity in Mongolia. Molecular analyses identified consanguineous relationships that were not evident from pedigree information alone and revealed reduced genetic diversity among offspring from consanguineous families. These findings provide important baseline data for understanding the genetic consequences of consanguinity in the Mongolian population and support the need for large scale epidemiological and genetic investigation.
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.