ArticleGenome medicine2026
Long-read genome sequencing enhances diagnostics of pediatric neurological disorders.
Article in Genome medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
- Near-perfect genome sequencing in medical genetics.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Structural variant discovery and diagnostic impact in rare diseases from short-read and long-read sequencing.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
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
backgroundSingleton short-read genome sequencing (GS) is increasingly used as a first-line genetic test for childhood neurological disorders (such as intellectual disability, neurodevelopmental delay, motor delay, and hypotonia) with diagnostic yields from 26 to 35%, typically involving a mix of single nucleotide variants and small insertions/deletions (SNV/INDELs), structural variants (SVs), and short tandem repeats (STRs). Long-read GS is emerging as an attractive alternative, offering a more comprehensive assessment of the genome, but its utility still needs to be systematically evaluated in a clinical diagnostic setting.
methodsWe prospectively included 100 children and adolescents (≤ 20 years) with neurological disorders, newly referred for genetic testing. Routine DNA was used for singleton standard clinical short-read GS in parallel with long-read GS (Oxford Nanopore Technologies). In addition to comprehensive variant calling, long-read GS data was also phased and underwent methylation analysis. Variant interpretation was restricted to in-silico gene panels targeting either intellectual disability (1,568 genes) or neuromuscular disorders (1,035 genes) depending on the clinical presentation.
resultsThe long-read GS generated an average of 111 GB data per sample, with a median read-length of 5 kb and average N50 of 16 kb; resulting in an average coverage of 34X. Short-read and long-read GS identified the same 29% diagnostic yield, including SNV/INDELs (n = 18), SVs (n = 9), STRs (n = 1), and uniparental disomy (n = 1). Long-read GS provided additional diagnostic value in 13 cases involving 17 distinct variants, including phasing of SMN1 and biallelic SNVs/INDELs in autosomal recessive genes, accurate determination of STR length and sequence as well as detailed structural characterization of SVs. Of note, an unbalanced translocation, der(14)t(8;14)(p11.2;p23.1), required de novo assembly and T2T-CHM13 alignment to resolve the breakpoint junctions. Furthermore, long-read GS detected disease-associated aberrant methylation patterns in the Prader-Willi region and across an FMR1 expansion.
conclusionsIn a clinical diagnostic setting, long-read GS proved to be a streamlined, first-line test, capturing the full spectrum of disease-causing variants, reducing the need for follow-up testing and enabling more precise interpretation. While the overall diagnostic yield may be comparable to that of short-read approaches, long-read GS offers significant added value across multiple variant types.
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.