Molecular Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing in Patients With Congenital Hydrocephalus
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Exome sequencing (ES) has been established as the preferred first line of diagnostic testing for certain neurodevelopmental disorders, such as global developmental delay and autism spectrum disorder; however, current recommendations are not specific to or inclusive of congenital hydrocephalus (CH). Objective: To determine the diagnostic yield of ES in CH and whether ES should be considered as a first line diagnostic test for CH. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were used to identify studies published in English between January 1, 2010, and April 10, 2023. The following search terms were used to identify studies: congenital hydrocephalus, ventriculomegaly, cerebral ventriculomegaly, primary ventriculomegaly, fetal ventriculomegaly, prenatal ventriculomegaly, molecular analysis, genetic cause, genetic etiology, genetic testing, exome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, genome sequencing, microarray, microarray analysis, and copy number variants. Study Selection: Eligible studies included those with at least 10 probands with the defining feature of CH and/or severe cerebral ventriculomegaly that had undergone ES. Studies with fewer than 10 probands, studies of mild or moderate ventriculomegaly, and studies using genetic tests other than ES were excluded. A full-text review of 68 studies was conducted by 2 reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were used by 2 reviewers to extract data. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model of single proportions. Data analysis occurred in April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pooled diagnostic yield. Additional diagnostic yields were estimated for specific subgroups on the basis of clinical features, syndromic presentation, and parental consanguinity. For each outcome, a 95% CI and estimate of interstudy heterogeneity (I2 statistic) was reported. Results: From 498 deduplicated and screened records, 9 studies with a total of 538 CH probands were selected for final inclusion. The overall diagnostic yield was 37.9% (95% CI, 20.0%-57.4%; I2 = 90.1). The yield was lower for isolated and/or nonsyndromic cases (21.3%; 95% CI, 12.8%-31.0%; I2 = 55.7). The yield was higher for probands with reported consanguinity (76.3%; 95% CI, 65.1%-86.1%; I2 = 0) than those without (16.2%; 95% CI, 12.2%-20.5%; I2 = 0). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic yield of ES in CH, the diagnostic yield was concordant with that of previous recommendations for other neurodevelopmental disorders, suggesting that ES should also be recommended as a routine diagnostic adjunct for patients with CH.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».