Diagnostic Yields Across Phenotypes

Diagnostic Yields Across Phenotypes

6 sections · 20 min

01

Why Yield Numbers Vary

Published diagnostic yields for the same test can range from 10% to 72%. Before citing any number clinically, understand the six key variables:

  • Cohort selection — the biggest driver. Specialty-clinic cohorts enriched for severe/complex disease yield 40–72%; population-level cohorts with milder phenotypes yield 15–25%. Always ask: who was in the denominator?
  • Singleton vs. trio — trio sequencing (proband + both parents) approximately doubles yield for de novo-enriched phenotypes (OR ~2.04, Clark et al. 2018). For severe DEE, GDD, or MCA, trio is essential.
  • Prior testing — a post-CMA-negative WES cohort yields ~25–35%, while first-tier WES in the same phenotype yields ~30–45%. Prior negative tests remove diagnoses from the denominator.
  • Database maturation — reanalysis of older WES data yields new diagnoses in ~10–25% of unsolved cases. A negative WES is time-stamped, not permanent.
  • CMA platform — SNP arrays detect UPD and autozygosity (important for imprinting disorders); oligo-only arrays miss this.
  • Severity — younger onset, multi-system involvement, epilepsy comorbidity, and distinctive features all independently predict higher yield. Mild isolated phenotypes (isolated ASD without ID) consistently show the lowest yields.

Key Points

  • Cohort selection is the single largest driver of yield variation — specialty clinic vs. population level
  • Trio sequencing ~doubles yield for de novo-enriched phenotypes (DEE, GDD, MCA); OR ~2.04
  • Negative WES results are time-stamped: reanalysis at 12–24 months yields new diagnoses in ~10–25% of unsolved cases
  • SNP-array CMA detects UPD and autozygosity; oligo arrays do not — platform matters for imprinting disorders
  • Younger onset, multi-system involvement, and comorbid epilepsy independently predict higher yield

Check Your Understanding

A colleague presents two WES studies for the same intellectual disability phenotype: one reports 45% diagnostic yield, the other 18%. Both used similar sequencing platforms and trio analysis. Which variable most likely explains the discrepancy in published yield rates?

Select an answer to reveal the explanation


02

CMA vs. WES vs. WGS

Chromosomal Microarray (CMA) — Pooled NDD yield: ~10%

  • Detects CNVs ≥50–200 kb, aneuploidy; SNP arrays add UPD/autozygosity
  • Does NOT detect SNVs, small indels, balanced rearrangements, or repeat expansions
  • Inexpensive, rapid, decades of validation
  • Still first-tier for MCA, IESS, and ID (complements WES)

Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) — Pooled NDD yield: ~36%

  • Captures the ~2% of genome encoding proteins (SNVs + small indels)
  • Misses deep intronic, regulatory, balanced SVs, and repeat expansions
  • CNV detection possible but less sensitive than CMA
  • Standard first-tier test for undiagnosed NDD/ID at most academic centres

Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) — Pooled NDD yield: ~41%

  • Adds balanced SVs, deep intronic/regulatory variants, improved mitochondrial coverage
  • May screen for some STR disorders (ExpansionHunter), but sensitivity is variable
  • WGS vs. WES yield is NOT significantly different overall (OR 1.13, p=0.50)
  • Incremental gain concentrated in: post-WES-negative patients, leukodystrophies, atypical CP

Repeat expansion blind spot: Standard WES does NOT detect trinucleotide/pentanucleotide repeat expansions — Friedreich ataxia, SCA types, CANVAS, Fragile X/FXTAS, DM1/DM2, Huntington, C9orf72. Dedicated repeat-primed PCR, Southern blot, or long-read sequencing remain the gold standard. Always consider whether the phenotype suggests a repeat disorder before declaring testing complete.

Key Points

  • CMA: ~10% yield; detects CNVs and aneuploidy; SNP arrays add UPD/AOH; does not detect SNVs
  • WES: ~36% yield; detects coding SNVs/indels; misses deep intronic, regulatory, balanced SVs, and repeat expansions
  • WGS: ~41% yield; adds intronic/regulatory/SV detection; NOT significantly better than WES overall (OR 1.13)
  • WES does NOT detect repeat expansions (Friedreich, SCA, CANVAS, DM1, HD, C9orf72) — dedicated testing required
  • Many labs now run CMA + WES simultaneously to capture both CNV and SNV space in one workflow

Check Your Understanding

A 2-year-old with severe unexplained global developmental delay is referred for genetic testing. Both parents are available. Which sequencing strategy is most strongly supported by evidence for maximizing diagnostic yield?

Select an answer to reveal the explanation


03

Yield by Phenotype: Epilepsy

NICU / Neonatal Encephalopathy

  • rWES 20–35%; rWGS 35–50% (comparable in RCT, Maron et al. JAMA 2023)
  • ~18% of NICU admissions carry a Mendelian disease
  • Diagnosis changed management in 38–50% of cases — highest clinical utility in paediatric genetics

Developmental & Epileptic Encephalopathy (DEE)

  • WES 24–40%, WGS 35–50%
  • Highest yields in specific syndromes: EIMFS/Dravet ~78%, early infantile DEE ~43%

Infantile Epileptic Spasms (IESS)

  • Meta-analysis: CMA 14%, WES 26% (CI 21–31%)
  • Genetic diagnosis enables precision therapy in 61.6% of genetically explained cases

Non-DEE Epilepsy (focal or generalized, normal development)

  • WES 10–18%; gene panel is a reasonable first step
  • CMA rarely diagnostic for point-mutation epilepsies (SCN1A, GABRA1, GABRG2)

Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

  • Drug resistance independently predicts higher yield
  • All-epilepsy meta-analysis (Sheidley 2022, n=39,094): CMA 9%, WES 24%, WGS 48%

Key Points

  • NICU: rWGS/rWES 35–50%; diagnosis changes management in 38–50% of cases — highest clinical utility in paediatric genetics
  • DEE: WES 24–40%; specific syndromes yield highest (EIMFS/Dravet ~78%)
  • IESS: CMA 14%, WES 26%; genetic diagnosis enables precision therapy in 61.6% of explained cases
  • Non-DEE epilepsy: WES 10–18%; gene panel is a reasonable first step
  • Drug resistance independently predicts higher yield; see the [[epilepsy|Genetic Epilepsies]] module for gene-specific syndromes and precision treatment

Check Your Understanding

Which of the following pediatric neurogenetics phenotypes has the HIGHEST reported WES/WGS diagnostic yield?

Select an answer to reveal the explanation


04

Yield by Phenotype: Neurodevelopment

GDD (infant/toddler, unexplained)

  • WES first-tier 30–40%; trio + CNV-seq up to 61% (Zhang 2024, n=434)
  • Trio ~doubles yield vs. singleton (OR ~2.04)
  • Strongest yield predictors: moderate-to-severe impairment, age 12–24 mo, craniofacial features

Intellectual Disability (child/adolescent)

  • WES 30–45%; WGS 35–50%
  • ACMG 2021 supports WES/WGS as first-/second-tier (Manickam et al.)
  • DDD study (Wright et al. 2023): 41% trio WGS yield

Isolated ASD (without ID, epilepsy, or distinctive features)

  • Lowest NDD yield: WES 10–15%
  • Comorbid ID raises yield to ~25–30%
  • CMA retains value for recurrence counseling even without diagnosis

Multiple Congenital Anomalies (MCA)

  • CMA is productive first step at 15–25%
  • WES/WGS 35–55%; MCA+ID up to 62%
  • Consanguinity substantially raises recessive diagnosis yield

Cerebral Palsy (unexplained, no clear perinatal cause)

  • WES overall 31% (CI 24–39%), pediatric-specific 35%, strict exclusion 42% (Gonzalez-Mantilla, JAMA Pediatr 2023)
  • CP+ID yields 38% vs. 18% without ID

Macrocephaly

  • WES 20–40%; key genes: PTEN, PIK3CA, NF1, RAS-MAPK pathway
  • Somatic mosaic overgrowth (PIK3CA, AKT3) may need deep sequencing or tissue biopsy

Key Points

  • GDD: trio WES + CNV-seq up to 61% yield; trio ~doubles yield vs. singleton
  • ID: WES 30–45%, WGS 35–50%; ACMG 2021 supports WES/WGS as first-/second-tier
  • Isolated ASD: lowest NDD yield (WES 10–15%); comorbid ID raises to ~25–30%
  • Unexplained CP: WES ~31% overall, 42% with strict perinatal exclusion; CP+ID yields 38%
  • MCA: CMA productive first step (15–25%); WES/WGS 35–55%
  • Somatic mosaic overgrowth syndromes may require deep sequencing or tissue biopsy — standard WES on blood may miss

Check Your Understanding

A child with unexplained cerebral palsy (born at term, no perinatal insult, no clear structural MRI cause) is sent for genetic testing. Which statement best reflects current evidence?

Select an answer to reveal the explanation


05

Yield by Phenotype: Movement & White Matter

Episodic Ataxia

  • WES 20–35%; almost exclusively ion-channel point mutations (KCNA1, CACNA1A, ATP1A3)
  • Gene panel competitive with WES for well-defined phenotype

Progressive (Hereditary) Ataxia

  • WES ceiling ~50% in specialty cohorts (Fogel et al. 2020); WGS 40–55%
  • Most common hereditary ataxias are NOT detected by WES/WGS — they require dedicated repeat testing:
  • Friedreich ataxia (FXN GAA repeat) → repeat-primed PCR
  • SCA types (CAG repeats) → repeat analysis
  • CANVAS (RFC1 AAGGG repeat) → Southern blot or long-read sequencing
  • FXTAS (FMR1 CGG premutation) → FMR1 PCR
  • Always ask after a negative WES in ataxia: has dedicated repeat expansion testing been sent?

Leukodystrophy (MRI-selected, genetic suspected)

  • WES 50–72% — among the highest yields in all of neurogenetics
  • WGS 72–90%+ in dedicated programmes (Zerem et al. 2023: 89.6% with all modalities)
  • GWMD cohort: 72% overall, 77% for onset <3 yr, 85% for hypomyelination
  • MRI pattern recognition is the essential pre-test step — categorizing the white matter pattern (hypomyelination vs. demyelination vs. cystic vs. vacuolating) dramatically narrows the differential and raises yield; see the Hereditary Ataxias module for detailed ataxia clinical features

Key Points

  • Episodic ataxia: WES 20–35%; ion-channel point mutations; gene panel competitive for well-defined phenotype
  • Progressive ataxia: WES ceiling ~50%; most common hereditary ataxias (Friedreich, SCA, CANVAS) require dedicated repeat testing — NOT detected by WES
  • Leukodystrophy: WES 50–72%, WGS 72–90%+ — among the highest yields in clinical neurogenetics
  • MRI pattern recognition is the essential pre-test step for leukodystrophy — dramatically raises yield
  • After negative WES in ataxia, always ask: has dedicated repeat expansion testing been sent?

Check Your Understanding

A 14-year-old with slowly progressive cerebellar ataxia and sensory neuropathy has WES performed — the report returns negative/uninformative. Which is the most critical next step?

Select an answer to reveal the explanation


06

Summary & Clinical Utility

Pooled Yields Across Pediatric NDD Cohorts

TestYieldKey Source
CMA~10%Clark 2018, n=20,068
WES~36%Clark 2018; Pandey 2025, n=24,631
WGS~41% (NSD vs. WES)Nurchis 2023 (OR 1.13, p=0.50)
rWGS (NICU)35–50%Maron JAMA 2023
All epilepsyCMA 9%, WES 24%, WGS 48%Sheidley Epilepsia 2022, n=39,094

Six take-home points

  • CMA is not obsolete — uniquely detects aneuploidy, large CNVs, UPD; complements WES at lower cost
  • Trio is essential for severe early-onset phenotypes — ~2× yield vs. singleton for de novo-enriched conditions
  • WGS > WES only in specific scenarios — post-WES-negative, leukodystrophies, atypical CP
  • Repeat expansions are a separate testing universe — Friedreich, SCA, CANVAS, DM1, HD, C9orf72 require dedicated testing
  • Yield is dynamic — reanalysis at 12–24 months yields new diagnoses in ~10–25% of unsolved cases
  • Leukodystrophy is the special case — MRI pattern recognition + WES/WGS yields 50–89%

Clinical utility ≠ diagnostic yield: A diagnosis changes management in 38–50% of NICU cases and enables precision therapy in 61.6% of genetically explained IESS. Examples: KCNQ2 → carbamazepine; GLUT1 → ketogenic diet; SLC6A1 → avoid vigabatrin; SCN1A → avoid sodium channel blockers.

Key Points

  • Pooled yields: CMA ~10%, WES ~36%, WGS ~41% — WGS not significantly different from WES overall
  • CMA remains first-tier in MCA, IESS, and ID; simultaneous CNV-seq + WES now standard at many centres
  • Trio is essential for severe early-onset phenotypes — ~2× yield for de novo-enriched conditions
  • Repeat expansions require dedicated testing — completely separate from WES/WGS
  • Reanalysis at 12–24 months yields new diagnoses in ~10–25% of unsolved cases — a negative WES is time-stamped, not permanent
  • Diagnosis changes management in 38–50% of NICU cases; enables precision therapy in 61.6% of genetically explained IESS

Check Your Understanding

A previously unsolved 4-year-old with WES performed 3 years ago (now aged 7) returns to clinic. The original WES report found no pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Which action has the highest yield of new diagnoses?

Select an answer to reveal the explanation

0 of 6 sections read

Scroll through all sections to track your progress.