Biomedical subjects

Jessica Wang

Publications and source records attributed to Jessica Wang.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

An Updated Evidence Assessment of the Genetic Causes of Dilated Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the diverse genetic architecture of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) continues to emerge and requires reassessment of the clinical relevance of implicated disease genes. Building on the 2019-2020 Clinical Genome Resource evaluation, the DCM gene curation expert panel reconvened in 2024-2025 to conduct a reassessment of genes in DCM. METHODS: The Clinical Genome Resource semiquantitative clinical validity classification framework was applied with specifications to DCM to classify genes into categories on the basis of strength of published evidence for a DCM phenotype. Previously curated genes were reassessed, and newly reported gene-disease-mode of inheritance (MOI) relationships, termed "curations," were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-eight genes were evaluated, inclusive of 72 unique gene-disease-MOI relationships across 51 previously evaluated and 17 newly assessed genes. Thirty-five curations were classified as high evidence (16 Definitive, 10 Strong, 9 Moderate), increasing by 16 from the prior assessment. Nine newly assessed genes were classified as high evidence: BAG5, FLII, LMOD2, MYLK3, MYZAP, NRAP, PPA2, PPP1R13L, and RPL3L. Twelve genes (11 newly appraised) were rated as high evidence with an autosomal recessive (AR) MOI. Five reevaluated genes from 2019-2020 had clinically significant changes in classification. Except for JPH2, for which curation was modified to separate autosomal dominant and AR MOI curations, clinically significant changes involved upgrades from low- to high-evidence categories (PLEKHM2, PRDM16, TBX20, TNNI3K), demonstrating the robustness of the Clinical Genome Resource gene curation process over time. An additional 29 gene-disease-MOI curations were classified as Limited, including 6 newly evaluated genes and 1 new MOI for a previously evaluated gene, MYBPC3-AR; 4 were classified as No Known Disease Relationship, and remained Disputed. Four previously evaluated genes were curated for both AD and AR MOIs: JPH2 (AD-Strong, AR-Limited), LDB3 (AD-Limited, AR-Strong), MYBPC3 (AD-Limited, AR-Limited), and TNNI3 (AD- and AR- Strong). CONCLUSIONS: With substantial new evidence, the genetic architecture of DCM has rapidly expanded. This updated assessment of genes reported in DCM yielded 35 high-evidence curations, an increase from 19 only 5 years ago. The results of this evidence-based evaluation process inform clinical interpretation of genetic information in the care of DCM patients and families.

dilated cardiomyopathy↗

PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented, and models of care are not well defined. To understand current genetic care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal investigators of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was conducted among the 24 principal investigators in advance to define current care models by evaluating which genetic evaluation components recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America were conducted, by whom, and the time required for each component. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the principal investigator responses: model 1: Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient); model 2: Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8); model 3: Externally Sourced (17%, n=4); and model 4: Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than model 4 (9.8±2.9; model 1 versus model 4; P=0.027; model 2 versus model 4; P=0.023). Notably, 88% of principal investigators used genetic information for treatment decisions, including implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement (83%; n=20) and cardiac transplantation (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor as part of the heart failure team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, although all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder the implementation of genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

cardiomyopathy, dilated↗

PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented and models of care are not defined. To understand current genetics care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal Investigators (PIs) of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was collected from the 24 PIs in advance to define current care models by evaluating which Heart Failure Society of America-recommended genetic evaluation components are conducted, by whom, and time required. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the PI responses: 1 - Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient), 2 - Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8), 3 - Externally Sourced (17%, n=4), and 4 - Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than Model 4 (9.8±2.9; 1 vs 4: p=0.027; 2 vs 4, p=0.023). Notably, 88% of PIs used genetic information for treatment decisions, including ICD placement (83%; n=20) or cardiac transplant (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor on the HF team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, even though all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder implementing genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

clinical genetics↗