Multicenter observational study shows improved diagnostic yield in children with rare pediatric neurological diseases, highlighting benefits of genomic integration.
Background: Rare pediatric neurological diseases (RPND) often remain undiagnosed for years, creating prolonged and costly diagnostic odysseys. Combining Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO)-based deep phenotyping with exome sequencing (ES) and reverse phenotyping offers the potential to improve diagnostic yield, accelerate diagnosis, and support sustainable healthcare in resource-limited settings. Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical impact of an integrated approach combining deep phenotyping, ES, and reverse phenotyping in children with suspected RPNDs. Methods: In this multicenter observational study, eighty-one children from eleven hospitals in South Kazakhstan were recruited via the Central Asian and Transcaucasian Rare Pediatric Neurological Diseases Consortium. All patients underwent standardized HPO-based phenotyping and ES, with variant interpretation following ACMG guidelines. Reverse phenotyping and interdisciplinary discussions were used to refine clinical interpretation. Results: A molecular diagnosis was established in 34 of 81 patients (42%) based on pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were identified in an additional 9 patients (11%), but were reported separately and not included in the diagnostic yield. Reverse phenotyping clarified or expanded clinical features in one-third of genetically diagnosed cases and provided supportive evidence in most VUS cases, although their classification remained unchanged. Conclusions: Integrating deep phenotyping, ES, and reverse phenotyping substantially improved diagnostic outcomes and shortened the diagnostic odyssey. This model reduces unnecessary procedures, minimizes delays, and provides a scalable framework for advancing equitable access to genomic diagnostics in resource-constrained healthcare systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yerkhojayeva et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: