MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412694502 · doi:10.1186/s13643-025-02896-y

Genetic testing for diagnosing neurodevelopmental disorders and epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4412694502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu‐Ming Chang, Yen‐Ta Huang, Pei-Chun Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpilepsyMeta-analysisExome sequencingProbandGenetic testingEpilepsy syndromesPediatricsInternal medicineBioinformaticsPsychiatryGeneticsMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Identifying the genetic causes of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and epilepsy is crucial for effective treatment and genetic counseling. Our objective was to determine the diagnostic yield of chromosomal microarray (CMA) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods-including targeted sequencing (TS), whole-exome sequencing (WES), and whole-genome sequencing (WGS)-in individuals with NDDs or epilepsy. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through August 31, 2024. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. We included studies with ≥ 10 patients (probands) diagnosed with an NDD or epilepsy who underwent CMA, TS, WES, WGS, or WES reanalysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool diagnostic yield percentages. Subgroup analyses were conducted by test modality, disorder subtype, and clinical features. RESULTS: A total of 416 studies (124,937 participants) met inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed significantly higher diagnostic yields with NGS methods compared to CMA (31.1% vs 14.8% in NDD cohorts; 28.7% vs 13.3% in epilepsy cohorts). Within NGS, WES had a higher yield than targeted gene panels (35.3% vs. 23.2% for NDDs; 34.2% vs. 24.0% for epilepsy). Diagnostic yields increased over time in more recent studies. Patients with certain clinical features had particularly high yields: NDDs with dysmorphic features (54.7%), syndromic presentations (37.6%), or co-occurring epilepsy (35.6%), and epilepsy with early onset (32.3%), epileptic encephalopathy (34.7%), or drug-resistant seizures (25.4%). Quality assessment using NOS revealed that the majority of included studies were of good to very good methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial between-study heterogeneity and variability in study designs that may limit the certainty of our pooled estimates, and potential publication bias, our results demonstrate that NGS-based tests-particularly WES and WGS-provide markedly higher diagnostic yields in patients with NDDs or epilepsy compared to CMA, supporting their use as first-line genetic tests. Patients with dysmorphism, syndromic NDD, early-onset or refractory epilepsy, and epileptic encephalopathy achieve above-average diagnostic yields, highlighting the value of comprehensive genetic testing in these subgroups. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024555664.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicGenomics and Rare DiseasesFrench-language works237,207