ArticleClinical genetics2026
High Concordance of Copy Number Variants Detected by Chromosomal Microarray and Exome Sequencing in Clinical Diagnostics.
Article in Clinical genetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Position Statement of the Indian Academy of Medical Genetics on Next Generation Sequencing-Based Testing for Rare Genetic Disorders.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Guideline
- High Concordance of Copy Number Variants Detected by Chromosomal Microarray and Exome Sequencing in Clinical Diagnostics.Clinical genetics · 2026Article
- The Evolution of Gene Sequencing Technologies: Unveiling Genetic Architecture of Nonsyndromic Orofacial Clefts.Genetics research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exome sequencing (ES), originally developed to detect single nucleotide variants (SNVs), has been increasingly leveraged to detect copy number variants (CNVs) through read-depth analysis, enhancing diagnostic yield with minimal computational overhead. However, chromosomal microarray (CMA) testing remains widely used. To evaluate the utility of ES as a first-tier clinical diagnostic test, we compared the sensitivity of CNV detection by ES to that of CMA in individuals who underwent both tests, and developed triploidy screening based on ES data. ES identified most clinically relevant CNVs, with a 98.91% concordance for regions adequately captured. A retrospective analysis of CNVs detected from ES over a ~3-year period, comprising 1563 prenatal and 4884 postnatal cases, revealed CNVs in 3.8% of prenatal and 4.4% of postnatal samples. The relatively low percentage stems from the fact that most cases underwent CMA before ES. Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants constituted 78.7% and 78.0% of these subgroups, with the remainder classified as variants of unknown significance. We highlight clinically relevant examples of CNVs across a range of sizes, including cases involving both CNVs and SNVs. The high consanguinity rate of the cohort allowed for systematic analysis of homozygous CNVs. Additionally, we demonstrate that ES can capture other diagnostic utilities traditionally associated with CMA, specifically uniparental disomy (UPD) and triploidy. Overall, our findings support ES as a robust, cost-effective alternative to CMA and advocate for its broader use as a first-tier diagnostic test for neurodevelopmental delay and congenital malformations, particularly until whole genome sequencing becomes more accessible and affordable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.