4.6 Article

An Age-Based Framework for Evaluating Genome-Scale Sequencing Results in Newborn Screening

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 209, 期 -, 页码 68-76

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.12.027

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  2. National Human Genome Research Institute, United States (NICH D) [U19 HD077632]
  3. UNC Yang Family Biomedical Scholars Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess the performance of a standardized, age-based metric for scoring clinical actionability to evaluate conditions for inclusion in newborn screening and compare it with the results from other contemporary methods. Study design The North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening study developed an age-based, semiquantitative metric to assess the clinical actionability of gene-disease pairs and classify them with respect to age of onset or timing of interventions. This categorization was compared with the gold standard Recommended Uniform Screening Panel and other methods to evaluate gene-disease pairs for newborn genomic sequencing. Results We assessed 822 gene-disease pairs, enriched for pediatric onset of disease and suspected actionability. Of these, 466 were classified as having childhood onset and high actionability, analogous to conditions selected for the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel core panel. Another 245 were classified as having childhood onset and low to no actionability, 25 were classified as having adult onset and high actionability, 19 were classified as having adult onset and low to no actionability, and 67 were excluded due to controversial evidence and/or prenatal onset. Conclusions This study describes a novel method to facilitate decisions about the potential use of genomic sequencing for newborn screening. These categories may assist parents and physicians in making informed decisions about the disclosure of results from voluntary genomic sequencing in children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据