Back

A multi-dimensional framework for establishing and managing a genomic newborn screening program

Schnabel-Besson, E.; Dikow, N.; Alex, K.; Muetze, U.; Straub, H.; Doll, E. S.; Mahal, J.; Brennenstuhl, H.; Mayer, C. J.; Neth, L.; Hagedorn, T.; Hoegl, H.; Settegast, S.; Ditzen, B.; Mueller-Terpitz, R.; Koelker, S.; Schaaf, C. P.; Winkler, E.

2025-06-17 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2025.06.17.25329471 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeNewborn screening (NBS) is an effective measure of secondary prevention. The application of genomic sequencing in population-based screening would enable further expansions of the NBS disease panel and a genomic NBS (gNBS). The selection of NBS target diseases is still based on the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria from 1968, which are considered incomplete, rendering the necessity of developing new criteria. MethodsThe present work aims to establish a multi-dimensional framework for future gNBS programs. An interdisciplinary expert panel comprising researchers from pediatric and adolescent medicine, human genetics, ethics, medical psychology, law, and patient representatives used a nominal group technique-like multi-stage consensus process to define criteria for gNBS, considering ethical, legal, and social implications, medical aspects, and patient perspectives. ResultsOverall, 18 criteria were developed, clustered into four subcategories: I. Clinical criteria (characteristics of the target disease); II. Diagnostic criteria (requirements of the test); III. Therapeutic-interventional criteria (prerequisites of the intervention); IV. Program management criteria (requirements of the program). Subcategories I-III define selection criteria for target diseases, subcategory IV defines criteria for how to establish and manage the program. ConclusionThis multi-dimensional framework serves as a well-balanced basis for developing thoroughly revised and internationally accepted consensus screening criteria.

Published in European Journal of Human Genetics (predicted rank #4) · training set

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.