Back

Evaluating mainstreaming in pediatric immunology: an optimal model of care

DeBortoli, E.; Clinch, T.; Vaz-Goncalves, L.; Burbury, L.; Jeppesen, M.; Pinzon Charry, A.; Melo, M.; Sullivan, A.; Hunter, M.; Peake, J.; McInerney-Leo, A.; McNaughton, P.; Yanes, T.

2026-02-26 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.02.24.26347043 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeWhile genomic testing is integral to pediatric inborn errors of immunity (IEI) care, few studies have examined strategies to support its optimal delivery. This study aimed to characterize a pediatric IEI cohort and assess the impact of implementing a mainstream model-of-care (MoC). Materials/MethodsComprehensive chart audit was conducted for patients ([&le;]18y) who received IEI genomic testing in Queensland, Australia, from 2017-2025. Descriptive analyses captured demographic and clinical characteristics, genomic testing and results, and management outcomes. Inferential analyses assessed changes in genomic practices pre-MoC (<2021) and post-MoC ([&ge;]2021). Results322 patients met eligibility criteria (n=481 genomic test). Diagnostic yield (27.6%) varied by testing indication, with the highest rate among phagocytic defects (n=4/4;100%) and severe combined immunodeficiency (n=8/10;80%). Very-early-onset inflammatory bowel disease had the lowest diagnostic yield (n=3/68;4.4%), prompting changes to testing criteria. Molecular diagnosis resulted in management changes for 90.5% patients. Genomic testing was widely used pre-MoC (n=251 genomic tests). All outcomes significantly improved pre-and post-MoC (p<0.05): duplicate testing decreased (13.9% to 0%); variants of uncertain significance reduced (37.7% to 7.1%); informed consent documentation increased (70.5% to 88.4%); and diagnostic yield increased (16.2% to 27.4%). ConclusionTargeted interventions are needed to support delivery of genomic testing and strengthen service effectiveness.

Matching journals

The top 6 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.