GenRiskPro automates whole-genome sequencing analysis in complex disease, suggesting improved clinical decision-support.
Despite rapid advances in whole-genome sequencing (WGS), translating genomic findings into individualized insights remains challenging. We present GenRiskPro, a clinical decision-support and research platform, which automates WGS variant calling, annotation, prioritization, and reporting to deliver actionable findings and facilitate precision wellness. (To test the GenRiskPro platform, log on to https://www.phenomeportal.org/dashboard using the following credentials: Username: user@test.com; Password: test.) GenRiskPro integrates rare and common variant prioritization in a unified pipeline and in-house database, enabling both rare and complex disease and trait association analyses. Variant reporting is supported via LongevityCloud, which features a web portal for clinicians to review, adjust, and authorize the return of results in tabular and PDF formats, alongside a mobile app with artificial intelligence (AI) integration for sequenced individuals. Case studies using Turkish (TR, n = 275) and Swedish (SW, n = 101) WGS data assessed platform performance and variant prioritization: (a) predefined gene panels yielded a 1.82% positive rate for actionable findings per American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) secondary findings guidelines; (b) phenotype-driven support diagnosed cases including muscular dystrophy and microcephaly; (c) cohort-level ClinVar reassessment identified potentially misclassified pathogenic variants; (d) rare variant burden analysis revealed enrichment in ABCA4 for TR and SMPD1 in SW; and (e) population analysis highlighted carrier differences in trait-associated SNPs (rs12913832 and rs4988235) and PGx variants (CYP2B64 and CYP2B66). GenRiskPro unifies databases, literature, web development, and AI for rapid, user-friendly genomic analysis and reporting, which fosters collaboration among hospitals, researchers, clinicians, and patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: