ArticleResearch square2026
Benchmarking RNA-seq Tools for Real-World Diagnostic Applications.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Pediatric neuromuscular diseases are genetically and clinically heterogeneous. A substantial proportion remain without a definitive genetic diagnosis despite available clinical molecular testing. RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) can be used to complement genome or exome sequencing to elucidate or to identify the functional impact of variants of uncertain significance, but when manually analyzed is limited to candidate DNA variants or phenotype-driven gene lists. Open-source computational tools have been developed to systematically and unbiasedly analyze RNA-seq data for aberrant splicing, expression, or allelic imbalance. However, best use practice of these tools is yet to be established. Methods: To assess the performance of selected tools, we collected RNA-seq from 97 previously diagnosed samples to establish a truth set for benchmarking. Pathogenic variants were categorized as: true positives with confirmed aberrant RNA events and true negatives with no transcriptomic effect. We assessed performance of eight commonly used tools for splicing, expression and allelic imbalance analysis. We then applied the optimal strategy to 74 undiagnosed RNA-seq samples to identify new candidate diagnoses. Results: Across 68 diagnosed probands with aberrant RNA events, tools correctly identified 28 diagnoses. Splicing analysis tools provided most of the findings, but allelic imbalance tools uniquely identified 4, underscoring their value. Conversely, the false positive rate was highest for the splice tools and lowest for expression analysis. Application of tools led to identification of candidate variants for only 9 out of 74 undiagnosed patients. Conclusions: Inclusion of RNA-seq tools can expedite variant prioritization, characterization and interpretation in the diagnostic pipeline but remain complementary to manual analysis of loci where candidate variants were identified by DNA sequencing.
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.