Determinants of DNA-sequence-based Diagnostic Yield in the CSER Consortium.
AI interpretation is pending for this paper.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
Not AI summarized yet.
Research significance
Pending deeper interpretation.
Source abstract
PURPOSE: Diagnostic yield from exome and genome sequencing varies widely across studies. It remains unclear how much of this variation reflects patient-level factors (e.g., sex, clinical features, race/ethnicity, genetic ancestry) versus site-level practices such as sequencing modality or variant interpretation workflows. We aimed to quantify the contributions of these factors to diagnostic outcomes across five U.S. clinical sequencing sites. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 3,008 prenatal, neonatal, and pediatric cases from the NHGRI Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium (2017-2023). Clinical indications spanned neurodevelopmental, neurological, immunological, metabolic, craniofacial, skeletal, cardiac, prenatal, and oncologic presentations. Genetic ancestry was inferred from sequencing data, and variants were interpreted using ACMG/AMP guidelines to classify DNA-based diagnoses. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate associations between diagnostic yield and fixed effects (sex, prenatal status, isolated cancer, number of clinical indications, sequencing modality, race/ethnicity, and genetic ancestry), while modeling study site as a random effect to quantify between-site variation. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic yield was 19.0%. Multiple clinical indications (OR=1.47, 95% CI 1.20-1.80, p<0.001) were associated with higher diagnostic yield, and male sex (OR=0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.96, p=0.017) and prenatal status (OR=0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90, p=0.012) were associated with lower yield. Sequencing modality, race/ethnicity, genetic ancestry, and isolated cancer were not statistically significantly associated with diagnostic outcomes.. A model without fixed effects attributed ~10% of variance in diagnostic yield to between-site differences. After adjusting for covariates, site-level variance decreased to 5.7%, indicating consistent variation across sites not explained by measured patient factors. CONCLUSION: Across five sites, patient-level clinical features influenced diagnostic yield, but substantial site-level variation remained even after adjustment. Differences in variant interpretation, or case-classification practices may contribute to this residual variability. Further efforts to increase consistency in exome- and genome-sequencing diagnostic workflows may help reduce inter-site differences.