ArticleGenetics in medicine open2026
Artificial intelligence-assisted clinical exome sequencing: Insights and outcomes from 822 pediatric diagnoses.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective study examined the clinical and genetic characteristics of pediatric patients undergoing clinical exome sequencing (ES) and evaluated the performance of a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI) platform that was integrated into our analysis pipeline. Methods: ES was performed in 822 consecutive patients at a single clinical laboratory. AI-based tools were used to jointly assess genetic information and the proband's Human Phenotype Ontology terms to support variant prioritization during the initial case review. Results: A definitive molecular diagnosis was established in 22% (181 of 822) of index cases, while 40% (325 of 822) had variants of uncertain significance. Among those with a definitive diagnosis, 93% (168 of 181) had a single finding and 7% (13 of 181) had multiple findings. Of the 152 reported pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in the fully resolved cases, 98.7% were successfully flagged by AI, and 75.0% ranked among the top 10 "most likely" variants. Conclusion: Clinical ES provides a substantial diagnostic yield in complex pediatric disorders. Integration of AI-powered platforms can accelerate phenotype-driven variant prioritization and facilitate rare disease diagnostics, but underscores the need for careful validation and optimization in clinical workflows.
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.