Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 973

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Exome Sequencing for Genetic Identification of Rare Mendelian Disorders

Open access
Lee, Hane, Deignan, Joshua L., Dorrani, Naghmeh, Strom, Samuel P., Kantarci, Sibel, Quintero-Rivera, Fabiola, Das, Kingshuk, Toy, Traci, Harry, Bret, Yourshaw, Michael, Fox, Michelle, Fogel, Brent L., Martinez-Agosto, Julian A., Wong, Derek A., Chang, Vivian Y., Shieh, Perry B., Palmer, Christina G. S., Dipple, Katrina M., Grody, Wayne W., Vilain, Eric, Nelson, Stanley F.·2014·JAMA

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) is rapidly becoming a common molecular diagnostic test for individuals with rare genetic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To report on initial clinical indications for CES referrals and molecular diagnostic rates for different indications and for different test types. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinical exome sequencing was performed on 814 consecutive patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions at the University of California, Los Angeles, Clinical Genomics Center between January 2012 and August 2014. Clinical exome sequencing was conducted as trio-CES (both parents and their affected child sequenced simultaneously) to effectively detect de novo and compound heterozygous variants or as proband-CES (only the affected individual sequenced) when parental samples were not available. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical indications for CES requests, molecular diagnostic rates of CES overall and for phenotypic subgroups, and differences in molecular diagnostic rates between trio-CES and proband-CES. RESULTS: Of the 814 cases, the overall molecular diagnosis rate was 26% (213 of 814; 95% CI, 23%-29%). The molecular diagnosis rate for trio-CES was 31% (127 of 410 cases; 95% CI, 27%-36%) and 22% (74 of 338 cases; 95% CI, 18%-27%) for proband-CES. In cases of developmental delay in children (<5 years, n = 138), the molecular diagnosis rate was 41% (45 of 109; 95% CI, 32%-51%) for trio-CES cases and 9% (2 of 23, 95% CI, 1%-28%) for proband-CES cases. The significantly higher diagnostic yield (P value = .002; odds ratio, 7.4 [95% CI, 1.6-33.1]) of trio-CES was due to the identification of de novo and compound heterozygous variants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions, trio-CES was associated with higher molecular diagnostic yield than proband-CES or traditional molecular diagnostic methods. Additional studies designed to validate these findings and to explore the effect of this approach on clinical and economic outcomes are warranted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2014.14604

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 973

Metadata

Authors
Lee, H., Deignan, J. L., Dorrani, N., Strom, S. P., Kantarci, S., Quintero-Rivera, F., Das, K., Toy, T., Harry, B., Yourshaw, M., Fox, M., Fogel, B. L., Martinez-Agosto, J. A., Wong, D. A., Chang, V. Y., Shieh, P. B., Palmer, C. G. S., Dipple, K. M., Grody, W. W., Vilain, E., & Nelson, S. F.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2014-11-12
Volume
312
Issue
18
Pages
1880
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2136941319
Cited by
973
References
2
FWCI
61.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical Exome Sequencing for Genetic Identification of Rare Mendelian Disorders. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2014.14604
The paper
Lee, H., Deignan, J. L., Dorrani, N., Strom, S. P., Kantarci, S., Quintero-Rivera, F., Das, K., Toy, T., Harry, B., Yourshaw, M., Fox, M., Fogel, B. L., Martinez-Agosto, J. A., Wong, D. A., Chang, V. Y., Shieh, P. B., Palmer, C. G. S., Dipple, K. M., Grody, W. W., . . . Nelson, S. F. (2014). Clinical Exome Sequencing for Genetic Identification of Rare Mendelian Disorders. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.14604

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.