ArticleClinical and translational science2026
Analytical Validation of an Annotation Tool for WGS-Based Pharmacogenomics: Preparing for Clinical Implementation in Pediatric Oncology.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2026. 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.
- Analytical Validation of an Annotation Tool for WGS-Based Pharmacogenomics: Preparing for Clinical Implementation in Pediatric Oncology.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Practical guide to implementing pre-emptive pharmacogenetic screening in routine pediatric oncology care.PharmacogenomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly accessible in clinical practice, enabling pharmacogenomics (PGx) integration, including in pediatric oncology. However, the lack of validated software to accurately annotate clinically actionable PGx variants from WGS limits routine implementation. We therefore aimed to identify and validate a PGx annotation tool suitable for clinical use in pediatric oncology. We evaluated several tools for technical performance and clinical integration. The Pharmacogenomics Clinical Annotation Tool (PharmCAT) was selected for its alignment with expert-reviewed PGx guidelines, inclusion of relevant gene-drug pairs and prescribing recommendations. PharmCAT was validated using an in silico dataset by introducing known diplotypes into the Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) reference sample, complemented by four clinically confirmed diplotypes from three patients. Diplotype and phenotype outputs from WGS were compared against the GIAB and patient reference data. We tested 71 diplotypes across seven genes (TPMT, NUDT15, CYP3A5, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, DPYD, UGT1A1), using ≥ 95% sensitivity and specificity as validation criteria. CYP2D6 was excluded from this validation due to genotyping limitations from the input data used by PharmCAT. The tool was integrated into our WGS analysis pipeline using containerization for consistent, reproducible execution. Diplotype and phenotype results from PharmCAT fully matched the in silico GIAB set and patient samples, achieving 100% sensitivity and specificity. These findings confirm PharmCAT as a reliable tool for preemptive PGx annotation, supporting implementation in pediatric oncology. Its clinical integration supports individualized dosing, reducing adverse effects and improving efficacy. Further validation of additional gene-drug pairs will broaden its clinical utility.
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.