ArticleGenetics in medicine open2026
RNA-guided clarity: The potential for resolving variant uncertainty in clinical exome sequencing.
Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Variant-specific RNA testing resolves variants of uncertain significance in exome testing.BMC genomics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although RNA analysis holds potential to increase the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES) for rare disease, its practical utility and barriers to its large-scale implementation have not been well studied. To quantify the impact of RNA analysis in clinical ES, we retrospectively assessed variants reported over a nearly 5-year period at a single clinical laboratory. Methods: Reported variants and corresponding genes were assessed based on 4 eligibility criteria for RNA analysis at our laboratory: (1) suspected spliceogenic impact, (2) sufficient gene expression in blood, (3) characterized gene with at least moderate gene-disease validity, and (4) mechanism of disease is loss of function (LOF). Results: A total of 1987 unique variants were reported on ES during the study period. In total, 11.4% (226/1987) were putative splicing variants, 68.2% (1355/1987) had sufficient gene expression in blood, 83.0% (1650/1987) were in a gene with a LOF mechanism, and 98.9% (1965/1987) occurred in characterized genes. When assessed on the 4 criteria combined, 7.6% (152/1987) of variants were eligible for RNA analysis. Of those variants, which were identified in 153 individuals, 35.5% (54/152) were variant of uncertain significance (VUS), representing 5.2% (54/1035) of all VUS reported. Nine cases were successfully recruited for retrospective RNA analyses, 7 of whom had VUS and 2 who had a likely pathogenic variant. Of the VUS, 71.4% (5/7) were upgraded, whereas 28.6% (2/7) remained a VUS. The 2 likely pathogenic variants remained likely pathogenic. Conclusion: These findings indicate that putative splicing variants represent a substantial portion of VUS in this clinical ES cohort, and most were identified in characterized LOF genes with RNA expression in blood. Integrating RNA analysis with clinical ES could clarify over 5% of reported VUS, even when accounting for known limitations in a rare disease setting, making it a viable strategy to increase diagnostic accuracy and the likelihood that a patient will receive a clinically meaningful report.
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.