ArticleScientific reports2025
Improved genomic characterization of a clinically heterogeneous pediatric cohort with WGS vs. WES.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic testing in liver diseases: Clinical applications.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Review
- The Role of Muscle Biopsy in the Era of Modern Genomic Medicine-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) comprehensively detects DNA sequence variation, enabling assessment of genetic disorders. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic utility of WGS for pediatric musculoskeletal disorders by comparing it with whole exome sequencing (WES), which is more widely used but not as comprehensive in its coverage of the genome. This multi-center cohort study consists of WGS and WES analysis for 36 pediatric patients with musculoskeletal disorders of unknown etiology and, where available, their parents and siblings. WGS and WES were performed on DNA extracted from saliva samples. Secondary analysis of sequence data and tertiary analysis with interpretation of sequence variants were performed using the Illumina DRAGEN and Emedgene platforms, respectively. We evaluated 36 patients, and the median age was 11 years. The most common phenotypes included thoracolumbar scoliosis and gait disturbance. The median number of candidate variants per patient identified by WES and WGS were 57.5 and 90.5, respectively. 38 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified by WGS, providing a potentially diagnostic (tier-1) candidate for 22 of 36 (61.1%) patients. 12 of the 38 tier-1 variants (31.6%) were identified only by WGS. Of these 12 variants missed by WES, two candidates had variants that are likely to solve the respective case after undergoing manual curation. WGS resulted in a larger number of variants predicted as pathogenic/likely pathogenic in patients with musculoskeletal phenotypes, including variants potentially capable of solving their respective cases. WGS showed particular advantage in detecting CNVs. This study demonstrates that WGS is a promising method for improving our understanding of musculoskeletal disorders marked by genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity.
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.