Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40935603›Full record

ArticlePrenatal diagnosis2026

Diagnostic Yield After Postnatal Reanalysis of Prenatal Exome Sequencing Results.

Kate Swanson, Ugur Hodoglugil, Teresa N Sparks, Billie R Lianoglou, Anne M Slavotinek, Mary E Norton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prenatal diagnosis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The role of reanalyses in genomic sequencing for fetal effusions.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kate SwansonDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1174-1501
Ugur HodoglugilGenomics Medicine Laboratory, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Teresa N SparksDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8593-2186
Billie R LianoglouCenter for Maternal-Fetal Precision Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Anne M SlavotinekDivision of Human Genetics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-4069-7778
Mary E NortonDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

Sharing Aggregate Genomics Research Findings with Diverse Participants: A Pilot Study of an Innovative Design StrategyU01HG009599 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KOENIG, BARBARA A., KWOK, PUI-YAN · 2017 to 2021
$16.3M
WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RESEARCH CENTERK12HD001262 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Andrea Vashti Jackson · 1998 to 2026
$9.3M
Brianna Marie FoundationFetal Health FoundationNHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG009599NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001262NIH HHS 5K12HD001262-18NIH HHS U01HG009599UCSF Center for Maternal-Fetal Precision MedicineUltragenyx Pharmaceutical
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAnalysis of exome sequencing (ES) relies on correlation with phenotypic features, but fetal phenotyping is often incomplete. The additional yield of postnatal follow-up in cases with negative or inconclusive prenatal ES has not been demonstrated. Our objective was to assess the incremental diagnostic yield of ES reanalysis after initially negative prenatal ES for congenital anomalies incorporating features identified postnatally.

methodsThis was a secondary analysis of two prospective cohort studies of ES for fetal anomalies. We included cases in which initial ES utilizing the prenatal phenotype was not diagnostic. The primary outcome was incremental diagnostic yield of ES when incorporating postnatal findings.

resultsEighty-seven cases with negative or inconclusive prenatal ES and postnatal follow-up available were included. Of those, 56 (64%) had new findings postnatally. There was an incremental yield of 2% in the entire cohort, and 7% in those with new postnatal findings. In two additional cases, postnatal evaluation suggested a specific genetic diagnosis that was not detectable with ES.

conclusionAmong pregnancies with fetal anomalies and no clear diagnosis identified by prenatal ES, postnatal follow-up is recommended. Reanalysis of ES results can result in a genetic diagnosis in 7% of cases with new findings.

Indexed as

Congenital AbnormalitiesExome SequencingPrenatal DiagnosisAdultCohort StudiesFemaleGenetic TestingHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID40935603
PMCPMC12722113

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.