Molecular Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing in Patients With Congenital Hydrocephalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".