Back

Features Influencing Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing in the DECIPHERD Study in Chile

Moreno, G.; Rebolledo-Jaramillo, B.; Böhme, D.; Encina, G.; Martin, L. M.; Zavala, M. J.; Espinosa, F.; Hasbun, M. T.; Poli, M. C.; Faundes, V.; Repetto, G. M.

2026-02-22 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.02.12.26345769 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundExome sequencing (ES) has become a key diagnostic tool for rare diseases (RDs). However, most evidence on ES performance comes from high-income countries and patients from European ancestry. In countries such as Chile, limited access to next generation sequencing amplifies health disparities and highlights the need to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from ES. MethodsThis study presents the second phase of the Chilean DECIPHERD project, in which we performed ES in a new group of patients with RDs presenting with multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), and/or suspected inborn errors of immunity. To identify clinical and demographic factors associated with an increased probability of obtaining an informative ES result, we conducted a logistic regression analysis, combining the results of the first and second phases of the project. We also objectively evaluated global ancestry measured using ADMIXTURE, as a potential factor. ResultsSixty-seven patients participated in this second phase of DECIPHERD with a median age of 6 years (range: 0-27); 55.2% were female, with an average ({+/-} s.d.) proportion of Native American ancestry of 0.615 {+/-} 0.18. Clinically, 52.2% presented with both MCA and NDD, and the rest had other phenotype combinations. An informative result, including pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in genes consistent with the patients phenotype, was identified in 34.3% of the cohort; 61% of these variants had not been previously reported in databases such as ClinVar. By combining the two phases of the study, we reached a total of 167 patients, in whom the presence of NDD and/or MCA significantly increased the probability of achieving an informative ES outcome. In contrast, previous use of gene panel testing was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving an informative result. Ancestry was not associated with diagnostic yield. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the utility of ES in achieving a diagnosis in a clinically diverse cohort of Chilean patients with RDs, and characterized features associated with a higher diagnostic yield. These findings may contribute to evidence-based patient prioritization strategies in settings with limited access to NGS resources.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.8%
2
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.3%
4
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
5
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
7
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
8
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.1%
10
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
Human Genetics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
12
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
13
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
15
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
16
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.3%
17
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
18
The Journal of Pediatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
19
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
20
Genetics in Medicine Open
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
21
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
24
Human Genomics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
25
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
26
Epilepsia
49 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%