ArticleJournal of human immunity2026
Nationwide TREC/KREC-based newborn screening and clinical outcomes in Japan.
Article in Journal of human immunity, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-scale real-world data on T-cell receptor excision circle (TREC)- and κ-deleting recombination excision circle (KREC)-based newborn screening for inborn errors of immunity remain limited. In this nationwide cohort, we evaluated Japan's program (2020-2025), including 1,380,634 newborns. Of 869 referred infants (0.06%), 40 were diagnosed, including 15 with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), 16 with X-linked agammaglobulinemia or other agammaglobulinemias, and nine with severe T cell lymphopenia. After a median follow-up of 18 mo, overall survival was 98%. All infants with SCID survived; 14 underwent hematopoietic cell transplantation with sustained engraftment. Referral rates were 0.04% for TREC and 0.03% for KREC. Repeat sampling was associated with lower referral rates (0.05 vs. 0.56%). Referral rates varied across assay kits and laboratory practices, reflecting interlaboratory heterogeneity in a decentralized screening system. The transition from self-paid to public funding increased coverage from 77.1 to 97.7%. These findings support TREC/KREC-based screening and highlight the need for standardized algorithms and sustained public funding for equitable nationwide implementation.
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.