ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Diagnostic yield of genome sequencing for children with intellectual disability and developmental delay.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
Background: Genome sequencing (GS) has recently been considered as a first-tier diagnostic tool for individuals with intellectual disability (ID) and developmental delay (DD). In this study, we assess the diagnostic yield of GS for a large cohort of children with ID/DD and describe variants contributing to genetic diagnoses in this cohort. Methods: A retrospective analysis of consecutive GS results for individuals under 18 years of age with a clinical indication of ID/DD was conducted using data from a clinical diagnostic laboratory. The present analysis included 666 individuals. Results: In this cohort, 31.1% (207/666) of children received positive GS results. There were 186 children who received a genetic diagnosis that was at least partially associated with their history of ID/DD, leading to a phenotype-specific diagnostic yield of GS for ID/DD of 27.9%. For individuals without known prior genetic testing, 35.3% (103/292) had positive GS results. There were 259 variants that led to genetic diagnoses in this cohort. Of these, 7.7% (20/259) were variants with limited to no coverage on exome sequencing. Conclusion: GS identified at least one genetic diagnosis associated with ID/DD in 27.9% of children with ID/DD as a clinical indication. An additional 3.2% of children received positive GS results associated with other features of their clinical indication. Almost 8% of variants related to the genetic diagnoses in this cohort may not have been detected through other standalone genomic technologies. These findings further support the recommendation by medical and professional societies of GS as a first-tier diagnostic test for individuals with ID/DD.
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.